Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-01-0253
J-01-238 3/15/01 - ap RESOLUTION NO. +�` A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RIVERFRONT SITE IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE SITE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE OF THE ART BASEBALL STADIUM FOR THE MARLINS; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) OF THE SITE FOR ACQUISITION OF THE REQUIRED LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AND TO PRESENT THE AGREEMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Riverfront site in Miami, Florida, is approved as the most appropriate site for the construction of a state of the art baseball stadium for the Marlins. Section 2. The City Manager is directed" to negotiate with the property owner(s) of the site for acquisition of the required land at fair market value and to present the �i The herein direction is further subject to compliance with all requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney, including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter and Code provisions. CITY COMMSSION MEETING OF, MAR 152001 agreement(s), in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to the City Commission as soon as possible for consideration. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.2/ PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March , 2001. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the '--�glation by signing it in the designated pla effective with the elapse of (1d days regarding same, without the Mayoerci"ft g vey! ATTEST: r � WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK e TO LLO TY ATTORNEY W5159:BSS AND CORRECTNESS: not Indicate a^pr^.,,,a! of D/01D, s �' _ e If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. Page 2 of 2 ®r I.t — A a BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Prepared for: CITY OF MIAMI March 12, 2001 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Tab I z Introduction Subject of the Study Site Descriptions Site Analysis Criterion II Individual Site Analyses III Comparative Site Analyses Appendix A. Planning Considerations (Spillis Candela DMJM) B. Parking, Traffic and Utilities Analyses (DMJM Harris Engineering) C Environmental Review (Evans Environmental & Geosciences) D. Estimate of a New Metrorail Station and Relocation of Metromover I Page 4 4 6 8 C37 Ca Prepared for the City of Miami 2 12 45 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS About the Lead Consultants of the Project Consulting Team VT Legg Mason Real Estate Services and Stafford Sports: Based in Philadelphia, PA, Legg Mason Real Estate Services (LMRES) is a subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc., which manages over $93 billion of equity and fixed income assets for clients in the United States and Europe. As one of the largest commercial mortgage banking firms in the country, LMRES also provides real estate and sports consulting services. LMRES is a leading advisor nationally on the evaluation, feasibility and financing of major and minor league sports facilities, large commercial projects, mixed-use communities and golf course developments. Working with LMRES, Stafford Sports, LLC of Medford, NJ provides specialized financial structuring, transaction negotiation and managerial/operational advice and assistance to public and private entities engaged in the development, funding and operations of sports and entertainment facilities. Hammes Company: Based in Milwaukee, W1, Hammes Company serves the needs of governmental, quasi -governmental, professional and collegiate sports teams involved in the development and operation of sports and entertainment facilities. Since 1990, Hammes Company has served as owner's representative or project manager for sports facilities valued at over $2 billion — including Ford Field, Miller Park, Kohl Center, Lambeau Field redevelopment, First Union Arena at Casey Plaza, Firstar Center and several others. Spillis Candela DMJM: Based in Coral Gables, FL, Spillis Candela DMJM was established in 1926 and is one of the oldest and largest professional design firms in the southeastern United States. Spillis Candela DMJM has a workforce of 2,000 professionals with international capabilities. Their work has received numerous design awards. CO Prepared for the City of Miami3 a BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Section I. Introduction On February 15, 2001, the City of Miarni, FL commissioned Legg Mason Real Estate Services (LMRES) of Philadelphia, PA to determine the advantages and disadvantages of locating a new multi -use, state-of-the-art stadium at various proposed sites located throughout Miami, FL. To complement their analysis, Legg Mason Real Estate Services retained Stafford Sports of Medford, NJ and the Hammes Company of Milwaukee, WI to provide their sports advisory expertise to this site assessment effort. All three members of the project consulting team have been retained by numerous major professional sports franchises, private developers and public agencies. In addition, Spillis Candela DMJM of Coral Gables, FL provided the planning support and considerations related to the analysis of the proposed sites. In conducting this site review, the findings of LMRES and the project consulting team were also supported by the analysis related to the Development Regional Impact (conducted by Osterholt Consulting of Ft. Lauderdale, FL), the traffic, parking, access and engineering studies (performed by DMJM Harris of Miami Lakes, FL); and an environmental review (produced by Evans Environmental & Geosciences of Miami Lakes, FL). The results of those individual consultants, who prepared individual technical memoranda, can be found in the Appendix of this report. On December 17, 2000, Miami -Dade County and the Florida Marlins of Major League Baseball (MLB) executed a letter of intent outlining a public/private effort to build a new state-of-the-art baseball stadium. To fund the costs related to the construction of this facility, Miami -Dade County and the Florida Marlins developed a preliminary finance plan that consists of a combination of public funds (various tax revenue bonds and other proposed financing vehicles from Miami -Dade County and the State of Florida) as well as financial commitments made by the Florida Marlins. As part of the letter of intent, both parties agreed to locate the proposed ballpark within downtown Miami. The Florida Marlins propose a 40,000 -seat stadium with the following program elements: 60 luxury suites 5,000 premium seats, 4,000 bleacher seats and 31,000 general admission seats O 1,500 -car parking garage t� CP W retractable roof with natural turf and air conditioning Prepared for the City of Miami q BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 1 — Subject of Study When analyzing the various sites, the project consulting team used the baseline data for the stadium (size, costs, etc.) provided by the Florida Marlins and their design and construction consultants. It is important to note that due to the water table, the field level is at grade as compared to many recently built ballparks where the lower seating bowl is constructed below grade. From an architectural standpoint, the effect is that the stadium will be 25 to 30 feet higher than most ballparks around the county. The preliminary building program, supplied by the Florida Marlins, in general is consistent with other state-of-the-art ballparks being l developed for Major League Baseball. However, at this time, design has not yet advanced to a level of sufficient detail since this design work requires site-specific analysis which typically commences upon a final site selection. In reviewing the preliminary stadium program, it is the opinion of LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes Company that the Florida Marlins' proposed stadium C.� Prepared for the City of Miami 5 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS meets the standards of a state-of-the-art facility, which the industry defines as those buildings encompassing the latest design elements; enhancing the experience of the attendees; maintaining flexibility to safeguard against functional obsolescence; and capturing appropriate revenue streams through premium seating, ample concession areas and other amenities. Related to the building program, it is also the opinion of the three lead consultants that the Florida Marlin's request for a 1,500 -car, on-site parking garage is reasonable. The value of premium seating packages, which is essential to the financial viability of new stadiums, will be significantly impacted ?f dedicated parking facilities are not within close proximity to the stadium. Furthermore, Major League Baseball requires that teams can only enter into stadium leases that provide dedicated adjacent secured parking for home and visiting players. Additionally, it is customary that convenient parking be made available to large sponsors, team staff and certain other individuals. Therefore, LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes Company can conclude that the Florida Marlins' preliminary stadium program is appropriate and, subject to final design, will be a state-of-the-art venue for the City of Miami. The City of Miami provided the consulting team the following eight sites for consideration (listed in alphabetical order): Arena West — bounded by N.W. 8th Street on the north, N.W. 6th Street on the south, the Metro Rail on the east and 3rd Avenue/Interstate-95 on the west. Bicentennial Park "A" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the existing deep water cut on the south, Biscayne Bay on the east and by Biscayne Boulevard on the west. Bicentennial Park "B" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the American Airlines Arena on the south (with a portion of deep water cut filled), Biscayne Bay on the east and Biscayne Boulevard on the west (relocated westward merged with N.E. 2"d Avenue). Bicentennial Park "C" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the American Airlines Arena site on the south (with a portion of deep water cut filled), Biscayne Boulevard on the east (relocated eastward into Bicentennial Park) and N.E. 2"d Avenue on the west. Orange Bowl — bounded by N.W. 7th Street on the north, N.W. 3rd Street on the south, N.W. 14th Avenue on the east and `3 N.W. 16th Avenue on the west. 1 Orange Bowl Expansion — bounded by N.W. 14th Avenue on the west, N.W. 12T" Avenue on the east, mid -way between N.W. 3 dand 4 th Streets on the south and mid -way between N.W. 5T" and 6th Streets on the north. CJS W Prepared for the City of Miami 6 TAI 'wt'�"t � Yf�"'' �ii�� .� .t�� r ' + ��'� �s�t-. �. oh�• Ly �4 '� 1 1�' � '�Q' T, �{ �' _�wZ'..4 ! 1iRL,�r � �,�R. I• / ' �I 4i r � � , "jar 1►r"�1 � ;� , I ' �'i� {.'.kY�� �'�Y y,��� �*•t: ��,� �, � tib= [•.Y,'t, ��� � t '�C I�,;.1 �'t; ,t,�.3�1���...�,q�►;�' %,,• i. ;;�1�,,-r;�a_. _ ;, � •o .Ir �1 FrA'�'VriNr �Mt v i „7: u It 4. is � � i•.A'- s -i�it . �'r� ''� ^If�% rGi•+ r r -i- � Vii' •,. 9- ,t iYS1L=i� jf' �n�yijf� ' , wy : ' � 7.F ° ;JF,rJ �,.rC1.*i.« ��fgldr.l.�.;..1 v�rY+'Yi■ 'j k4••f»�F�:,. + _ >.'� � `� 7 ��i ?{ i iy � 1..+�2�;ta •�i:�.�'ia l.u.�, •�'=�wk..k.r�uy,� �. ��"r %+, .���...� �.'� r��4�`"'1 �h�°1r�fJ'�•�+'1 rnRd."4 ::!,. ''f:. _l.:il ~yu 1 y� BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS 9 To be deemed successful in its setting, the proposed stadium needs to meet certain functional requirements such as pedestrian and vehicular access, serviceability and parking. As the evaluation of the sites were conducted by the project consulting team, it became apparent that each site presented unique opportunities and constraints. In addition, each site posed different impacts in function and integration with the surrounding communities. When analyzing the feasibility of the eight potential sites, the project consulting team focused on several key factors which included the following: Functional and programmatic issues related to the size and configuration of the stadium (adequate footprint) Access to the site (vehicular, mass transit and pedestrian) Impact on adjacent neighborhoods (traffic, parking, community integration, scale, etc.) Timing related to land assemblage, movement of utilities, roadway improvements and environmental remediation' Influence on creating other commercial and/or institutional opportunities Qualifications for obtaining credits from existing Development Regional Impact (DRI) or development Costs (general order of magnitude costs associated with various sites) From a functional standpoint, it can be concluded that a baseball stadium can be built on any of the eight proposed sites. However, the Riverfront site may have certain site constraints that will need to be addressed during the design phase. The Riverfront site cannot accommodate the stadium footprint, supplied by the Florida Marlins. Other new state-of-the-art stadium footprints, such as Enron Field in Houston, TX, may be able to achieve proper fit on this site. However, there will be compromises to the program provided by the penalties or premiums associated with construction on the site. After determining that each site could accommodate the footprint of a new stadium, the project consulting team assessed remaining issues reiated specifically to the individual sites. These assessments were more objective in nature and involved reviewing and interpreting data such as the supply of parking, calculated demand of new parking, flow of traffic, accessibility and qualifications in obtaining credits from existing Development Regional Impact (DRI) or credits from other existing demolition credits. Other quantitative analyses involved planning the physical site, determining the impact on utilities and roadways and calculating order of magnitude costs associated with the stadium construction, site preparation and site improvements. The budgets and schedules for all sites exclude costs and time associated with potential environmental remediation. Environmental cost can only be Finalized following the �:. completion of a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). In order to compete a Phase 11 analysis on the privately owned sites, the owners would have to agree to report any environmental issues to the Miami -Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM). Due to this complex mater, it was determined that a t Phase Il would not be completed for all sites at this time. C" W 0 Prepared for the City of Miami 8 d t� Coors Field, Denver, CO Jacobs Field, Cleveland, OH BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS In addition to the quantitative analysis, LMRES, Stafford Sports, Hammes and Spillis Candela DMJM reviewed the sites based on their experience as it relates to the impact that the stadium would have on the surrounding community and the ability to generate additional economic development activity. In other cities around the country, commercial investment has resulted from locating sports facilities within designated "urban sports/entertainment districts." For example, the following two cities experienced substantial economic activity related to the construction of newly built sports facilities: When Coors Field opened in Denver, CO in 1995, reports indicated that $20 million was spent in new downtown business and over twenty-five restaurants opened. From 1995 to 1999, the value of land adjacent to Coors Field increased by over 14% with many converted old warehouses having loft units that are selling between $200,000 and $300,000 per unit. When Jacobs Field opened in 1994, Cleveland, OH experienced the opening of over twenty retail establishments and the renovations of over eighty-five storefronts. Since its opening, the Gateway Project, which includes the Jacobs Field and the Gund Arena, has created over 6,250 permanent jobs and has generated $6.5 million in payroll taxes. Prepared for the City or Miami 9 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS 9 Using a unique planning approach to real estate development, cities have clustered or strategically located entertainment attractions (such as sports facilities and cultural institutions) with traditional anchors (such as hotels and office complexes) to create a concentrated area of year-round activity. Figure 3 - Successful Components to Creating a Mixed -Use, Entertainment District Prepared for the City of Miami 10 a BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Urban Land Institute, an internationally recognized non-profit educational and research organization, made the following observations about this approach to real estate development: "Urban Entertainment Districts are seen by cities as a way to revitalize downtowns and attract business activities that have been lost to the suburbs during recent decades. Successful development of a retail/entertainment project begins with a strategic evaluation of the opportunities to position the project to compete as a destination." Planned entertainment districts, such as Baltimore's Inner Harbor, San Francisco's Yerba Buena Gardens and Cleveland's Gateway Project, have realized significant economic impacts from their investment in sports venues. The success in these cities has resulted largely by leveraging the investment in stadiums to anchor emerging sports and entertainment districts that become year-round local and regional destinations. The primary economic development impacts from properly planned and financed mixed-use, entertainment districts include urban revitalization, commercial activity, employment growth, enhanced tax base and urban housing initiatives as well as many other positive gains. While it is recognized that the City of Miami has not experienced measurable development resulting from locating the Miami Arena and the American Airlines Arena downtown, LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes firmly believe that the potential to create opportunities, similar to other urban entertainment districts around the country, exist within downtown Miami. As a result, the project consulting team believes that the ability to position downtown Miami in this context may be the most critical site selection criterion. Prepared for the City of Miami I I DIMON if BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Arena West Site Comprised of approximately 12.88 acres plus 2.78 acres when including the streets (15.66 acres in total), the Arena West site is located in a mixed-use area. The northwestern portion of the property has developed into the Poinciana Village residential community. The southeastern portion of the site is encumbered by a lease for the Travelways bus parking area. The balance of the property consists mostly of vacant land. Within this site, there are 147 parcels owned by 66 individuals and/or private entities. Three parcels, owned by CRA, have a deed restriction stating that these parcels must be used in a manner consistent with the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Project or the parcels revert to Miami -Dade County. Also, there is pending litigation on one or more of these parcels. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site would have a low cost for utility relocation (estimated at $3 million to $5 million). Access - Of all the sites, it is the closest to the Overtown Metrorail Station and consequently has the lowest off-street parking demand. The site is accessible from the Metrorail, Metromover and Interstate 95. Land Assemblage — Approximately 75% of the property is currently owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. CJ? Prepared for the City of Miami 14 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS H Proposed Arena West Site Disadvantages of the Site: Economic Development Impact — The distance from the existing entertainment clusters will limit spin-off development (bounded by the freeway to the west and a residential neighborhood to the north). Community Impact - Disruption to the neighborhood would be significant requiring the demolishing of a seven year-old residential development that has contributed to the rebuilding of the area (involves the potential relocation of up to 60 families). Lease — There is a long-term land lease with Poinciana Village encumbering 3.29 acres. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. CO Prepared for the City of Miami 15 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Issues This site's location is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current developments such as the Performing Arts Center and existing American Airlines Arena. It will not contribute to the synergy of that area, and the character of any ancillary development will not be of the same quality and potential magnitude. In addition, the issue of scale is a concern, given the residential context on the north boundary. Moreover, it will bifurcate Overtown. Based on a review of all factors that c impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the [ stadium could be completed within 39 months from adopting a finance plan. a BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Arena West Site Cost Assumptions Project Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking $30,000.000 Soft Costs $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised) $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Utility Relocation $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 Demolition & Site Logistics $412,000 to $423,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 16 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Comprised of approximately 19.42 acres of actual Bicentennial Park property, the site is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the bay on the east. This option does not require moving Biscayne Boulevard. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. Land Assemblage — The property is currently owned by the City of Miami. CJZ Prepared for the City of Miami 18 0 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although this site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to the Metromover, the site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Economic Development Impact — As currently designed, the site will channel spin- off development to areas across Biscayne Boulevard, but it will have limited positive development impact on areas farther west. Community Impact - This option significantly reduces the amount of available open park space along Biscayne Bay. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami19 W Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Downtown DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Considerations Views to the bay from Biscayne Boulevard will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be severely impacted. Similarly, views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be significantly impacted. Although pedestrian connections have to be developed, synergy with the existing arena and the proposed new Performing Arts Center will take effect. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 36 months from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Cost Assumptions Proiect Component $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30.000,000 $385,000,000 $80,000,000 to $85,000,000 $1,000,000 Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) Estimated Utility Relocation Costs $466,000,000 to $471,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up, if any. W Prepared for the City of Miami 20 9 _� Nr " g-4 A "iiloom 46 C F� 0 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" Comprised of approximately 19.42 acres of the Bicentennial Park, 7.77 privately owned acres and 6.2 acres from the filled in slip (for a total of 33.39 acres), Option B is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the bay on the east. A majority of the site is owned by the City of Miami, and within the 7.77 acres, there are 14 parcels owned by 5 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. Also, this site preserves more open space due to the location of Biscayne Boulevard and the partial filling of the slip. Land Assemblage — A significant portion of the property is currently owned by the City of Miami which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. Cit W Prepared for the City of Miami 22 W� 2 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site - "B". Disadvantages of the Site: Access - Although this site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to the Metromover, the site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Utilities - Due to the relocation of Biscayne Boulevard, utilities would need to be relocated at an estimated cost of $7.2 million although it does not affect the 72" force main. Economic Development Impact - As currently designed, it has moderately reduced the amount of prime developable frontage on Biscayne Boulevard, and it will have limited positive development impact on areas farther west. Community Impact - Although filling in the slip will preserve open space and access to the bay, there are various regulatory issues (Department of Environmental Resource Management, etc.) which will impact on the site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. CSt W Prepared fort the Ory of Miami 23 Development Regional Impact (DRI) Some or all of this site may be in one or both of the Downtown DRI and the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site selections, and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make the site unacceptable. Other Considerations A relocation of Biscayne Boulevard to the west is proposed. The existing city blocks between the current Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2"d Avenue and between N.E. 7th Street to 1-395 are used by the new boulevard alignment, and the area will no longer be available for development. Consequently, NE 12th Street, 11th Street, & 10th Street east of 2nd Avenue will be closed with some impact on the city grid. Views of the bay from Biscayne Boulevard will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be significantly impacted. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 36 months from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $385,000,000 $80,000,000 to $85,000,000 $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 Project Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal Estimated Public Land (Not appraised date) Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised value) Utility Relocation Other (Roads, Mass Transit, etc.) $523,000,000 to $540,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 24 � la2rai9�!',aa:�ytlCd i dpi ICU- s V°Si �J Fyn"' _�a•�;r+3 t�` �y � t. Ar t 0 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Comprised of approximately 11.29 acres of Bicentennial Park Site, 7.77 privately owned acres and 6.2 acres from the filled in slip (for a total of 25.26 acres), the site is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the relocated Biscayne Boulevard on the east. A portion of the site is owned by the City of Miami, and within the 7.77 privately owned acres, there are 14 parcels owned by 5 individuals/private entities. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. Economic Development Impact - By preserving Bicentennial Park for redevelopment and open space, this site would take advantage of the nearby anchors (American Airlines Arena and Performing Arts Center). Land Assemblage — A significant portion of the property is currently owned by the City of Miami which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. Parking - This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites, and it is convenient to the Metromover. NO) , CJt w Prepared for the City of Miami 26 CSt BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Disadvantages of the Site: Access — The site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Closure of N.E. 12th Street, 11th Street, 10'h Street east of N.E. 2nd Avenue will impact on the city grid. The traditional character of Biscayne Boulevard will be altered significantly by a building placed axially along the sight lines of a northbound or southbound traffic. Utilities — Assuming the footprint of the stadium covers the former Biscayne Boulevard location, utilities, pump station and 72" force main would need to be relocated at an estimated cost of $45 million. Community Impact — There will be a loss of some park space. Economic Development Impact — As currently designed, it has significantly reduced the amount of prime developable frontage due to the scale of the stadium and its impact on views and access to the bay. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section 111) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 27 Development Regional Impact (DRI) Some or all of this site may be in one or both of the Downtown DRI and the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site selections, and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make the site unacceptable. Other Considerations The existing city block parcels between the current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2nd Avenue (from NE 91h Street to 1-395) are used for the new stadium and will no longer be available for development. The views within the surrounding areas will be slightly impacted. The views from the west side of the stadium to the bay will be significantly affected, but their value might be enhanced by the presence of the stadium. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the O stadium could be completed within 60 months from adopting a finance plan. 9 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $385,000,000 $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 $45,000,000 to $50,000,00 $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 Project Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised) Utility Relocation $9,000,000 to $18,000,000 Demolition, Site Logistics and Other $524,000,000 to $553,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 28 '� �F d •R 7r r. / i 7h . � � .�. � r Lbil '� T � ,"'4� � H„�yi.;,,ili� '.I r• ►' �(� ��..,�1 }�'KY ► 1t'__I �+ A J + ���jI�'I r' ���: ic.,ii,, " I —" � t_ -'i j,�1. t�v,� ''.I� y►���, 5.:. is.{.� il1 �i� f� �A �1J, ; CSL' � - �,_, rr ►'t � �I !+ � ti♦ :at 1! � O i� BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Site Comprised of approximately 35.95 acres, the Orange Bowl Site is located in a mixed-use area. The property consists of the City -owned stadium and parking lots. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site does not require any significant utility relocation (estimated cost of $1 million). Land Assemblage — The property is currently owned by the City of Miami. Prepared for the City of Miami 30 bz W BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS a Proposed Orange Bowl Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although the capacity of the baseball stadium would be much smaller than the Orange Bowl, parking would be a challenge due to the extended schedule and no access to the Metromover or Metrorail. The site is indirectly accessible from Highway 836 and requires using residential streets to disperse game -day traffic. Community Impact — Disruption to the residential neighborhood would be more significant due to the increased number of events (over 70 per year). Economic Development Impact — This site would present extremely limited spin-off development. It does not draw pedestrian traffic from the Central Business District, and it will not benefit from the clustering effect created by multiple anchors. Utilities — The site is not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed on the site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering iextent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Use Agreement — The Orange Bowl is encumbered by a use agreement with the University of Miami. There are an additional nine years remaining (plus renewal options) with no cancellation provision in the agreement. The University of Miami has indicated that they are not willing to consider a buy-out of this use agreement. In the event of eminent domain, the City would be required to determine the fair market value of the use agreement which would include compensation of all future lost revenue streams (such as advertising, premium seating sponsorships, etc.) Prepared for the City of Miami 31 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is not in an existing DRI, and one will not be required. If the Orange Bowl is demolished, credits from the Orange Bowl can be transferred to the new ballpark. Otherlssues There is debt, secured by the property, in the amount of $13.8 million that would need to be repaid. Based on the University of Miami's position related to their use agreement, there is no projected completion date for the stadium. M BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Site Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $385,000,000 TBD $50,000,000 to $55,000,000 Proiect Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal University of Miami Use Agreement Estimated Public Land (Not an appraised value) $1,000,000 Utility Relocation $2,000,000 to $3.000,000 Demolition TBD Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 32 .. – �• "-'ALT^.-:1 •' 'iwQ"M�'�iN,�Y� c� w.. M _ ...�...� u u��....v.. ... ��.. Y.rn.m � �__ _- Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $385,000,000 TBD $50,000,000 to $55,000,000 Proiect Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal University of Miami Use Agreement Estimated Public Land (Not an appraised value) $1,000,000 Utility Relocation $2,000,000 to $3.000,000 Demolition TBD Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 32 ni,rte.._ / /�•-y t;=, �`' •�-�„�� �H IH I '"fir �� �' jj el lk ZIP 1 r' i� � .�—�I� J iEs�s � r•J`T•j—r�--1 r M ear�i+i' �s pq « il ;-"�� a •� �' r "Il' -r �v?� X71' .'.'�'-•;t'.cl� r � 1. � � , • ' qua' .�z -p¢ii:? wLw 1 d i� CFl► W W 2 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Comprised of approximately 15.7 acres (excluding streets), the property is located in a mixed-use area that is predominantly residential in character. The area was developed as far back as the 1920's. Within this site, there are 94 parcels owned by 84 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site does not require any significant utility relocation (estimated cost of $2.4 million). Land Acquisition — This site is one of the least expensive sites to acquire. Parking — The site can share parking with the Orange Bowl site. Prepared for the City of Miami 34 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Parking would be a challenge due to the extended schedule. The site is indirectly accessible from Highway 836 and requires using residential streets to disperse game -day traffic. Utilities — The site is not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed on the site. Community Impact — Disruption to the residential neighborhood would be more significant due to the increased number of events (over 80 per year), and it would require relocating many home owners. Economic Development Impact — This site would present extremely limited spin-off development, and it does not draw pedestrian traffic from the Central Business District Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 35 C9 W Development Regional Impact This site is not in an existing DRI, and one will be required due to State law and administrative rules. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 48 months from adopting a finance plan. Other Issues The ballpark would be disruptive to the scale of the existing residential fabric of the neighborhood surrounding it. In addition, this site is too far from the downtown to be associated with urban revitalization efforts. H BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000.000 $385,000,000 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 Project Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised value) Utility Relocation $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 Demolition & Site Logistics $412,000,000 to $423,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 36 U__ �r.-:fir—,'l,. _ 7;,, Wit J-7 a-- MR� k V77 Z; mom O i� Cit C+� 2 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site Comprised of approximately 13.33 acres plus 2.67 acres when including the streets (16.0 acres in total), the Park West site is located in a commercial area. The property has been developed with numerous warehouses, commercial facilities (many now vacant) and parking lots. Within this site, there are 56 parcels owned by 30 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Economic Development Impact — By preserving Bicentennial Park for redevelopment and open space, this site would take the greatest advantage of the nearby anchors (American Airlines Arena and Performing Arts Center). Through a clustering strategy, it will allow the City to create a mixed-use, entertainment district that would be larger in size with further westward penetration. Community Impact — There is no immediate residential area. Prepared fort the City of Miami 38 J ij I� W BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS 9 Proposed Park West Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to two Metromover stations, the site has somewhat good access. However, there will also be some impact on traffic since 59% of the trucks (or 760 trucks per day) use N.E. 2Ild Avenue when entering the Port of Miami.: NE 10'h Street between North Miami Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue and NE 1s' Avenue between NE 9'h Street and NE 11'h Street will be closed, with some impact to the city grid. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 39 Development Regional impact (DRI) This site is in the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to deem this site unacceptable. Other Issues The stadium is located within the existing fabric of Downtown Miami without impacting Bicentennial Park. Pedestrian connections to the park and the Arena will have to be developed. This location preserves the views to the bay and enhances the value of development along the boulevard due to the activity of a new ballpark to the west. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the Q stadium could be completed within 45 months from adopting a finance plan. ff BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30.000,000 $385,000,000 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 Proiect Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised value) Estimated Utility Relocation $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 Estimated Demolition & Site Logistics $433,000,000 to $445,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 40 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Riverfront Site Comprised of approximately 19.81 acres, the Riverfront site is located on the northern side of the Miami River. The property is located in a commercial area adjacent to the Central Business District. Surrounding properties include office buildings, Florida Power & Light facilities, parking lots and commercial businesses. Within this site, there are two parcels owned by individuals/private entities and one parcel owned by Florida Power & Light. Advantages of the Site: Access — A new Metrorail Station with direct access to the stadium can be incorporated into the top of the parking structure (for approximately $37-$42 million). Two Metromover stations are immediately adjacent to the site. Community Impact — There is no immediate residential area. There is also good potential for a riverfront pedestrian walkway which will add to the amenities of the site. Parking — This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites. The site is also among the best in terms of parking supply. This location avoids competing demand for existing parking required from concurrent events at the American Airlines Arena and the Performing Arts Center. Prepared for the City of Miami - 42 h�+ BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS X Proposed Riverfront Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although this site is convenient to the Metromover, the site has extremely difficult pedestrian and vehicular access. Utilities — Including the acquisition and relocation of the Florida Power & Light service center and utility relocation, the site would have much higher costs (estimated at $53 million). The substation would remain adjacent to the site. The site is also not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed. Construction Premium — There will be premiums to time and cost related to constructing the ballpark on a constrained site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 43 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Downtown DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Issues The impact of the ballpark at the River site could contribute to the revitalization of the Miami River and could encourage additional development in the Central Business District. However, this site is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current sports/cultural developments. The proposed footprint of the ballpark does not fit well in the site. Therefore, a design, different from the Florida Marlins' current plans, must be used. Other logistics would impact the construction site perimeters. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, I construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 48 months from adopting a finance plan. CJt 2 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Riverfront Site Cost Assumptions Project Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking $30,000,000 Soft Costs $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal $40,000,000 to $45,000,000 Estimated Non -City Land (Not appraised value) $53,000,000 Estimated Utility Relocation $21,000.000 to $38,000,000 Estimated Demolition, Site Logistics & Other $499,000,000 to $521,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 44 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS a Section III. Comparative Analyses Having determined the advantages and disadvantages of each site, the project consulting team created a series of charts to summarize the more significant issues related to the stadium project. The budgets and schedules for all sites have not accounted for time or cost associated with potential environmental remediation. Comparison Current Zoning Current Land Use Designation Figure 12 — Land Use Analysis Bicentennial Orange Bowl Orange Bowl Stadium Arena West Bicentennial Park "A" Park "B" & "C" Stadium (Complex) 16.2, C-1, PR Parks and Recreation C-1 (private) 16 PR (BC Park) G/I Government- G/I Government - Institutional Institutional, C-1, R-2, R-3 Park West Riverfront Site C-1 and C-2 ricted Recreation Restricted Major Public Major Public Facilities, Restricted mercial Commercial Facilities, Utilities and Commercial Utilities and Transportation, and General Recreation Transportation Restricted Commercial Commercial, Duplex Residential, Medium Density Residential O Office, SD -6 Central Commercial - Residential District, G/1 Government - Institutional Office, Restricted Commercial, Major Public Facilities, Utilities and Transpor ation Prepared for the City of Miami 45 Comparative Criteria Allowed Uses under Existing Zoning: Land Use Change required Timeline for change (If applicable) Access BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS West Bicentennial Bicentennial Orange Bowl Orange Bowl Park "A" Park "B" & "C" Stadium Expansion ium — Stadium — yes Retail — yes it — yes Rest'rant - yes .r-qnf - No n/a Worail, People Mover & stromover Biscayne Blvd. Interstate Stadium — yes Stadium — yes Stadium — no Retail — yes Retail — yes Retail — no Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - no No No Yes Park West Riverfront Stadium — yes Stadium — yes Retail — yes Retail — no Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - no No Yes n/a n/a 4 months if under 10 n/a 4 months if under acres 9 months if 10 acres 9 over 10 acres months if over 10 acres People Mover Interstate 836 Interstate 836 People Mover Metro Rail, People & Biscayne & Biscayne Mover & Interstate Blvd. Blvd. 95 1-395 From a zoning or land use consideration, there will be minimal impact on the project schedule. However, each site will present unique challenges related to negotiation and acquisition. It has been assumed that a minimum of one year will be required to assemble any site not completely owned by the City of Miami. Prepared for the City of Miami 46 O !j BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS 9 Figure 13 — Environmental Considerations Evans Environmental & Geosciences has provided the following chart that ranks sites from the lowest likelihood of a potential environmental issue (Site No. 1) to the highest likelihood of a potential environmental issue (Sites No. 6 and 7). 1 Orange Bowl 2 Orange Bow Expansion 3 Bicentennial Park "A" 4 Riverfront 5 Arena West 6 Park West 7 Bicentennial Park "B" and "C" Prepared for the City of Miami 47 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 14 - Parking Demand Analysis Site Estimated Parking Demand I Estimated Parking Supply (Within 15 -Minute .D Arena West 10,469 Information is not available. Bicentennial Park "A" 12,638 19,000 Bicentennial Park "B" 12,638 19,000 Bicentennial Park "C" 12,638 19,000 Orange Bowl 13,362 Information is not available. Orange Bowl Expansion 13,362 Information is not available. Park West 12,638 20,000 Riverfront 12,638 20,000 From a parking supply and demand analysis, there appears to be adequate parking for all sites with the exception of the two Orange Bowl sites. The following pages provide estimated project schedules for each site. Commencement of these schedules are dependent upon the following: (1) the City of Miami making its final site selection and/or alternate(s); (2) the City of Miami conducting additional site- specific due diligence (Phase II environmental, etc.); (3) the City of Miami identifying and securing funding sources to assemble land (if necessary); and (4) the development of a finance plan to fund the construction of the stadium that is consistent with the resolution i" passed and adopted by the Miami City Commission on February 15, 2001. t CiT C.� Prepared for the City of Miami 48 Site Acquisition Infrastructure Stadium Design 9 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 15 — Project Schedules Year 1 '*`'AtioptA!!Mect Fins 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months ARENA WEST Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ince Plan Construction 30 Months i Prepared for the City of Miami 49 a BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 16 — Project Schedule B -PARK &&A„ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S -Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 6 Months Infrastructure 9 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction 30 Months © � I Prepared for the City of Miami 50 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 17 — Project Schedules B -PARK 61619 Infrastructure Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 15 Months Relocate Biscayne Blvd Fill SliD Stadium Design Stadium -12 Months Construction Stadium - 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 51 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 18 — Project Schedules Site Acquisition Infrastructure Stadium Design Construction Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Adopt Project Finance Plan 12 Months Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 24 Months Relocate Biscayne Fill Slip 12 Months Stadium - 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 52 Site Acquisition BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS J Figure 19 - Project Schedule Year I Year 2 4 6 t , - ptnanca Plan 12 Months Infrastructure 18 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction Year 3 Year 4 30 Months ORANGE Bowl Year 5 Prepared for the City of Miami 53 9 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 20 - Project Schedule ORANGE EXPANSION Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ;k Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months infrastructure 18 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction d 30 Months E Prepared for the City of Miami 54 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 21 — Project Schedule Prepared for the City of Miami 55 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Adopt ProJec� �Igance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure 18 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 55 Site Acquisition Infrastructure Stadium Design Construction BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS w Figure 22 - Project Schedule Year 1 12 Months Year 2 Year 3 nice Plan 21 Months 18 Months Year 4 33 Months I RIVER FRONT Year 5 Prepared for the City of Miami 56 O Fj BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS 8 Figure 23 — Construction Costs Summary Item Arena BC BC BC Orange •: Park Riverfront West Park -A • ..Expansion Florida Marlins Data $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M Est. Public Low -$13 M Low -$80 M Low -$80 M Low -$45 M Low -$50 M Low -$1 M Low -$1 M NA Land High -$15 M High -$85 M High -$85 M High -$50 M High -$55 M High -$2 M High -$2 M Est. Private, Low -$7 M NA Low -$45 M Low -$45 M NA Low -$20 M Low -$35 M Low -$40 M Non -City Land High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$50 M High -$25 M High -$40 M High -$45 M Est. Utility Low -$3 M $1 million Low -$8 M Low -$40 M $1 M Low -$2 M Low -$8 M $53 M Relocation High -$5 M High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$3 M High -$10 M Est. Site Low -$4 M Minimal Minimal Low -$4 M Low -$2 M Low -$4 M Low -$4 M Low -$11 Logistics $ Demolition High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$3 M High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$18 M Other Minimal Minimal Low -$5 M Low -$5 M Minimal Minimal Minimal Low -$10 M (Roads, slip fill, etc.) High -$10 M High -$10 M High -$20 M Schedule 39 36 36 60 48 48 45 48 (months) Total. Low-$466 M Low -$523. . . . . High -$423 M High -$471 M •0 Estimated land expenditures were provided by the City of Miami using assessed property values and applying a multiplier on the basis of comparable sales. Prepared for the City of Miami 57 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS ff Limited Conditions and Underlying Assumptions In arriving at this analysis, except as otherwise noted, Legg Mason Real Estate Services, Inc. and other members of the project consulting team (cited in this report) have assumed the following: There are no hidden or undisclosed conditions of the lands or of the proposed improvements which would impair the utility or the feasibility of the use of the properties in accordance with this report. Furthermore, we have not conducted a comprehensive review of matters environmental in nature and assume the absence of any environmental hazardous or sensitive materials or deposits on the properties except as those sites mentioned specifically in the report. 2. The proposed properties will be in compliance with all applicable building, environmental, zoning and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes. The report is subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in our report: 1. The conclusions stated in our memorandum apply only as of the date indicated and no representation is made as to the effect of subsequent events. 2. With the exception of the presentation to the City Commissioners on March 15, 2001, we are not required to give any additional testimony or to be in attendance in court or any governmental or other hearing with reference to the report without written contractual arrangements having been made relative to such additional employment. 3. Neither all or any part of the content of this report shall be disseminated through limitation prospectuses, private offering memoranda, and other offering material provided to prospective investors. This report does not include an appraisal of value of land and/or property, and preliminary costs estimates of land and/or property, indicated in this report, should not be construed as expressing any opinion of value whatsoever. 4. Information, estimates and opinions contained in this report, obtained from sources outside of our office, are assumed to be reliable and may not have been independently verified. 5. The analyses contained in this report incorporate numerous estimates and assumptions regarding market performance, general and local business and economic conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters. However, some C estimates or assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results I■-► achieved during the period covered by our analyses are likely to vary from our estimates, and the variations may be material. CJT Prepared for the City of Miami 58 APPENDIX- A PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Opportunities, Constraints, Impact on Neighborhood For the purpose of this analysis all sites have been evaluated utilizing the same model of the proposed facility as currently anticipated by the Marlins Team Management. In all cases, stadium diagrams have been depicted utilizing current information from various agencies with jurisdiction applicable. Overall, images shown on site plans, aerial views, eye level perspectives and sections have been developed mathematically as actual scale representation utilizing computer modeling. Bicentennial Park A: This site is defined: • On the north — by 1-395 to and from Miami Beach • On the south — by the existing deep water cut • On the east — by Biscayne Bay • On the west — by the existing alignment of Biscayne Blvd. depicting the new wider expansion to the east as proposed and approved by the State of Florida Department of Transportation. i The stadium will be located on the north east corner of the site. A portion of the existing Bicentennial Park will remain open space. Views to the bay from the blvd. will be significantly affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be significantly impacted. Development opportunities west of the blvd. may be enhanced by additional activities in the park. However, the quality of future development may be affected. Land value would be reduced by lack of views and reduced by lack of views and increase traffic. © Synergy with the existing arena and the proposed new Performing Arts Center will take effect, although pedestrian connections have to be developed. IND C� Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-1 IND G.9 a Bicentennial Park B: This site is defined: ■ On the north — by 1-395 APPENDIX - A • On the south — by the American Airlines Arena Site. Three fourths of the existing deep water cut will be filled. ■ On the east — by Biscayne Bay, (the two water indentation on the park's edge will be filled). ■ On the west — Biscayne Blvd. which is relocated westwardly, to coincide with N.E. 2"d Avenue. The stadium position is rotated as shown on plan. A portion of the existing Bicentennial Park will remain open space. Additional park land is created at the expense of the water fills and blvd. relocation. A relocation of Biscayne Blvd. to the west is proposed. The existing city blocks between current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2"d Avenue and between N.E. 7'h Street to 1-395 are used by the new blvd., and will no longer be available for development. Consequently, NE 12'h Street, 11'h Street, & 10'h Street east of 2nd Avenue will be closed with some significant impact on the city grid. The historic character of Biscayne Boulevard will be destroyed. Views of the bay from the blvd. will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be impacted. However, the quality of future development may be affected. Land value would be reduced by lack of views and reduced by lack of views and increase traffic. Development opportunities most likely will be enhanced west of 2"d Avenue by the presence of a relocated Biscayne Blvd. Synergy with the existing arena and the proposed Performing Arts Center will take effect. Pedestrian connections have to be developed. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-2 APPENDIX - A H Bicentennial Park C: This site is defined: • On the north — by 1-395 to and from Miami Beach ■ On the south — by the American Airlines Arena site and N.E. 9`h Street. A portion of the deep water cut will be filled. ■ On the east — by Biscayne Blvd. relocated eastwardly into the west boundary of Bicentennial Park. ■ On the west — by N.E. 2"d Avenue A relocation of Biscayne Boulevard alignment to the east is proposed. The existing city block parcels between the current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2"d Avenue, from NE 91h Street to 1-395 are used for the new stadium and will no longer be available for development. The traditional character of Biscayne Blvd. will be altered significantly by a building placed axially along the sight lines of a northbound or southbound traffic. NE 12'h Street, 11'h Street, 10'h Street east of NE 2nd Avenue will be closed with some impact on the city grid. The views within the surrounding areas will be significantly impacted. The views to the bay immediately west of the stadium will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will not be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. Views of the Performing Arts Center and views of the arena along Biscayne Blvd. will be impacted. Biscayne Blvd. and the western edge of the park will be raised approximately 6 feet to provide below grade parking. Raising of the boulevard not only would destroy the historical character but would adversely impact the pedestrian linkages of the city grid. Synergy with the existing arena and the Performing Arts Center will take effect, although pedestrian connections will have to be developed. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-3 IN Park West: The site is defined: • On the north — by N.E. 11th Street • On the south — by N.E. 91h Street ■ On the east — by N.E. 2nd Avenue • On the west — by North Miami Avenue APPENDIX - A The stadium is located within the existing fabric of Downtown Miami without impacting Bicentennial Park. Biscayne Blvd. is not impacted, and historical character is maintained. NE 10th Street between North Miami Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue and NE 151 Avenue between NE 91h Street and NE 11th Street will be closed, with some impact to the city grid. Pedestrian connections to the park and the arena will have to be developed. This solution maintains the City's plan for 9'h Street Mall from iscayne Bay to Overtown. This location preserves the views to the bay and enhances the value of development along the blvd. due to the activity of a new Ball Park to the west. A visual corridor from the Ball Park could be developed with the future office/commercial development in the Park West area west of Miami Avenue & south of 91h Street will be enhanced. Synergy with the existing arena and with the proposed Performing Arts Center will help bring a significant amount of people to the area on non -game days and would encourage the development of this area as an entertainment district. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will not be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. The Ball Park in this site could become a catalyst that would trigger development activity in the parcels located to the east, west and south of the site. Cit W Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-4 f•••L I APPENDIX - A Arena West: The site is defined: • On the north — by NW Sih Street and it's adjacent residential community • On the south — by NW 6`h Street, adjacent to the Government Center • On the east — by the Metro Rail ■ On the west — by 3'd Avenue The impact of the Ball Park could possibly help stimulate activity in the neighborhood. However, this site's location is not close enough to be integrated into the city's current sports/cultural developments such as the Performing Arts Center and existing American Airlines Arena. It will not contribute to the synergy of that area. The issue of scale is a concern, given the residential context on the north boundary. There is ample accessibility to and from the site with its proximity to 1-95 and Metro Rail. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-5 CJZ' W APPENDIX - A Miami River: The site is defined: ■ On the north — by SW 3`d Street and the 1-95 overpass ■ On the south — by the Miami River • On the east — by North Miami Avenue • On the west — by Metro Rail and the FPL Substation The impact of the Ball Park at the river site could contribute to the revitalization of the Miami River and encourage spin-off development in the Central Business District. Extension of river walk is required of any development on the river. However, this site is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current sports/cultural developments such as the existing American Airlines Arena and the proposed Performing Arts Center. The proposed foot print of the Ball Park does not fit well in the site. An imposition over Metro Rail would need to be contemplated. Other logistics would impact the construction site perimeters. All edges to the site are very active. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-6 O UT W APPENDIX - A 9 Orange Bowl / Expansion: The site is defined: ■ On the north — by NW 7'h Street and its adjacent residential community ■ On the south — by NW 3rd Street and its adjacent residential community • On the east — by NW 14'h Avenue and its adjacent residential community ■ On the west — by NW 16'h Avenue and its adjacent residential community Building the Ball Park on the site would necessitate the demolition of the Orange Bowl. The Ball Park would be disruptive to the scale of the existing residential fabric of the neighborhood surrounding it. Lack of sufficient parking in the surrounding area and the significant amount of traffic through the residential community would create a major impact. The site to the east of the Orange Bowl Stadium presents an added impact on the community, which would be displaced. This site is too far from the city downtown to be a part of the development activity on the vicinity of the American Airlines Arena and the Performing Arts Center. No significant development opportunity in the surrounding area of this site is anticipated as a result of the Ball Park. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-7 APPENDIX - B W Transportation System Management Strategies Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium The purpose of this paper is to provide transportation management strategies in accommodating the anticipated trips to be generated by the new Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium. These strategies are largely based on the significant investments that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Miami -Dade County are making in the deployment of Intelligent Transportations Systems (ITS) within Southeast Florida. 1-95 Intelligent Corridor System FDOT is implementing an Intelligent Corridor System (ICS) along the 1-95 Corridor within Miami -Dade County. The ICS includes Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), CCTV Surveillance cameras, Video Incident Detection devices, fiber optic communications and a new control center. This system can help manage peak traffic flows to and from the new stadium by indicating which interchanges are congested and which interchanges have available capacity to accommodate stadium traffic. DMJM+Harris is completing construction engineering & inspection sereices on the first phase of this system. Advanced Traffic Management System Miami -Dade County is implementing an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) to replace the existing computerized signal system that was installed during the 1970s. This ATMS will provide more flexibility to monitor and control traffic along arterials and signalized intersections in providing synchronization and additional traffic capacity. The ATMS could also implement Bus Signal Priority and Reversible Lane configurations in addressing peak stadium traffic flow. DMJM+Harris is serving as subconsultant in providing traffic controller software and hardware for the ATMS. Advanced Traveler Information System FDOT, in partnership with Miami -Dade County, the MPO, MDX and others, is implementing a new Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) to serve the Southeast Florida region. The ATIS is a public / private partnership with Smart Route Systems, Inc. in which DMJM+Harris is a subconsultant responsible for planning and designing the ITS infrastructure and support of day-to-day operations. The ATIS will provide real-time traveler information that is timely, useful and accurate so that travelers can make © informed decisions regarding selection of alternative transportation modes, travel routes and trip times. The ATIS will use the internet, telephone voice recognition systems and other devices to disseminate real-time information. Perhaps this information can be displayed on the scoreboard at the end of the game, on DMSs at stadium interchanges or on traveler information kiosks throughout the stadium complex. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-1 9 Overlapping Event Times APPENDIX - B From a traffic standpoint, this pertains primarily to the Bicentennial A, B and C sites and the Park West site. These are all located in close proximity to the American Airlines Arena, the Performing Arts Center, Bayfront Park and Bayside Marketplace whose event schedules may overlap with the Marlins Stadium. From the standpoint of marketing sports and entertainment events in Miami, it applies to all sites. The major question is ..."Can Miami support sellout events in multiple sports and entertainment venues on the same day, or is the market self-limiting?" We do not have a firm schedule of events from the Performing Arts Center, but we have reviewed the current schedules of the five organizations that will be housed in the PAC (Concert Association of Florida, Florida Grand Opera, Florida Philharmonic Orchestra, Miami City Ballet and New World Symphony). Many of the PAC events may conflict with the Marlins and/or Heat schedules. The Bayfront Park and Bayside Marketplace venues hold numerous events during the year with varying times and durations. Clearly, the greatest potential for overlapping event times is between the Marlins and the Heat. Marlins Schedule The Marlins regular season runs from April through September during which they play 81 home games. The playoffs occur in October and consist of a best -of -five Division playoff, a best -of -seven Conference playoff and the best -of seven World Series. This translates to up to 11 additional games in October depending how far the Marlins advance in the playoffs. Marlins pre -season games are played elsewhere. Most of the Marlins weekday games begin at 7:05 p.m. and let out about 2'/Z to 3 hours later. Heat Schedule The Heat regular season runs from October through April, with the NBA playoffs occurring in May. O r.a Heat weekday games begin at 7:30 p.m. and let out about 2 hours later. GSt Prepared by DMJM Harris B-2 9 I Overlapping Schedules W`INI F: = There are several opportunities in the months of April, May and October when both the Marlins and the Heat will be playing on the same night at the same time. We have not done a market analysis to determine the extent to which Miami can support two major sports events on the same night. However, because of the influence of their respective playoffs, both of theses teams could expect sellout events during these overlapping months. A capacity crowd would be about 40,000 for the Marlins and about 20,000 for the Heat. Parking Demand and Supply The attached table entitled "Marlins Stadium — Transit and Parking Demand" calculates the off-site parking space requirements based on the number of patrons who arrive by automobile or by transit. This shows a demand for off-street parking of between 9,746 spaces for 25% transit arrivals and 13,362 spaces for zero transit arrivals. The Bicentennial Park A,B, and C sites and the Park West sites are served by the Metromover. The Metromover is not designed to carry large numbers of people swiftly, so we would not count on it for more than 5% of the departing patrons. The Arena West site is served by the Overtown Metrorail station. The Riverfront site is indirectly served by the Government Center Metrorail station which is several blocks away. Development of the Stadium project has included discussions of a new Metrorail station to serve the Riverfront site. We understand the cost of this project would be $25 million and would require about 4 years to design and construct. Neither of the Orange Bowl sites has any transit access although a future east -west extension of Metrorail is being planned and would include an Orange Bowl station. However, this is many years in the future. Prepared by DMJM Harris ME I1 -Z CTT W APPENDIX - B Therefore, it appears that the following are the demand for off-street parking spaces: • Bicentennial A,B and C: 12,638 (assumes Metromover only) • Park West: 12,638 (assumes Metromover only) • Arena West: 10,469 (Uses existing Overtown Mrail station) • Riverfront 12,638 (assuming no Mrail station) or 10,469 with Mrail • Orange Bowl 13,362 (assuming Mrail not available on opening day) • Orange Bowl Expansion 13,362 (assuming Mrail not available on opening day) The following table shows the number of parking spaces available. This shows that adequate spaces are available within a 15 minute walk of the Bicentennial, Park West and Riverfront sites. (Arena West and Orange Bowl were not estimated.) However, 15 minutes is a long walk considering inclement weather, elderly patrons, etc. This table also shows that all of the required off-street spaces are not available within a 5 minute walk. Walking Alternative Site (Number of Parking Spaces) Distance Bicen. Bicen. Bicen. Park Aren River Orang Orange a e A B C West West Front Bowl Bowl Exp. 15 Minute (3,000 19,00 19,00 19,00 20,00 N.A. 20,00 N.A. N.A. feet) 0 0 0 0 0 5 Minute (1,000 5,312 5,312 5,312 1,652 2,645 4,247 0 3,895 feet Notes: Number of Parking Spaces within 15 minute walk estimated by David Plummer & Assoc. Number of parking spaces within 5 minute walk furnished by Miami Parking Authority. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-4 O CJT W APPENDIX - B Prepared by DMJM Harris B-5 Transit Assumption A B C D E F 1 Number of Seats Occupied (1) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2 Patrons Not Requiring Parking or Transit (2) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3 Number of Patrons Requiring Parking and/or Transit 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 4 Percent Assumed to Arrive by Transit 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 5 Number Arriving By Transit ( No Parking Required) 0 1,880 3,760 5,640 7,520 9,400 6 Number Arriving by Auto (Parking Required) 37,600 35,720 33,840 31,960 30,080 28,200 7 Average Auto Occupancy (3) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 8 Number of Patron Parking Spaces Required 14,462 13,738 13,015 12,292 11,569 10,846 9 Number of Additional Employee/Media Spaces Required (3) 400 400 400 400 400 400 10 Total Parking Spaces Required 14,862 14,138 13,415 12,692 11,969 11,246 11 On -Site Priority Spaces Provided (3) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 12 Off -Site Parking Spaces Required 13,362 12,638 11,915 11,192 10,469 9,746 Prepared by DMJM Harris B-5 APPENDIX - B Truck Traffic on N.E. 1" Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue We have reviewed a report prepared by Beiswenger, Hoch & Assoc. that contains and origin -destination matrix if trucks entering and leaving the Port of Miami. This report finds the following: • On the average about 2,576 trucks enter and leave the Port daily on weekdays. Fridays are the heaviest with 3,162 trucks. • These trucks run all day between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. • About 59 percent of the trucks use N.E. 1" Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue to get to and from 1-395. • Another 25 percent use Biscayne Boulevard to and from 1-395. • Only 6 percent use N.E. 5'h Street and N.E. 8'h Street to get to 1-95. These findings affect primarily the Park West site which proposes to close N.E. 1s' Avenue. One design option re-routes truck traffic around the stadium via other local streets. This provides an alternative travel path but is clearly a lower level of service since it introduces a series of closely -spaced right angle turns. This is very difficult for big trucks. These findings also affect the Bicentennial B and C alternatives which involve relocating Biscayne Boulevard south of 1-395. The trucks use N.E. 1s' and 2nd Avenues because there is no ramp to go west on S.R. 836 from the 1-95/N.W. 8"' Street entry. FDOT has plans to construct such a ramp, however, design and construction is likely to take five years. Maintenance of truck traffic on Biscayne Boulevard and on N.E. 1s' and 2nd Avenues is an important concern during both utility CTt w Prepared by DMJM Harris B_6 O t� I� C3Z W APPENDIX - B Stadium Sites Access Analysis We have analyzed the traffic impacts of the stadium sites using the following assumptions: • Peak arrivals are between 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. for a starting time of 7:05 p.m. • Enough cars will arrive during this hour to occupy 13,000 parking spaces off-site and 1,500 premium spaces on-site. • The directional distribution is : • From west on 1-395: 25% = 3,250 cars • From east on S.R. 836: 5% = 650 cars • From north on 1-95: 55% = 7,150 cars • From south on 1-95: 15% = 1,950 cars • Peak departures are between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. Downtown Sites The 13,000 vehicles coming to the Stadium do not actually drive to the Stadium. They drive to their parking spaces. All of the Downtown -oriented sites (Bicentennial A, B, and C, Park West, Arena West and River -front) draw on the same pool of Downtown parking spaces. The only difference is in where the patrons go after they park their cars. Therefore, the traffic impacts of all of the Downtown -oriented sites will be essentially the same. The attached table shows that the Stadium in a Downtown location would impact 1-395 west of Biscayne Boulevard and 1-95 north of 1-395. Both of these links would operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic during both the entering hour and the departing hour. A major traffic concern of the Downtown sites is that, because the parking sites are dispersed throughout the Downtown area, there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic walking between parking lots and the Stadium at the same time that vehicular traffic is arriving and departing. Prepared by DMJM Harris M O Z"D W Orange Bowl 1, APPENDIX - B A similar analysis was done for the Orange Bowl using the same assumptions as above. The only additional assumption is that traffic from the north would be split 60 % from the northeast and 40 % from the northwest. All traffic would approach on S.R. 836, either from the east or from the west. The attached table shows that the Orange Bowl location would impact 1-95 both north and south of S.R. 836 and S.R. 836 both east and west of the Stadium site. These links would operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic. N.W. 17'h Avenue and N.W. 12'h Avenue would also operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic. The Miami Hurricanes play their home football games at the existing Orange Bowl. They generally play six to eight home games on Weekends. For the Orange Bowl Expansion scenario, whenever a Marlins game and a Hurricanes game coincide, or even overlap time on the same day, there would be even greater traffic congestion than for a Marlins game alone. General Traffic Impact Conclusions • The Stadium is a large traffic generator. With a seating capacity of 40, 000 patrons, it is twice as large as the American Airlines Arena. • In this analysis the traffic demand was assumed to arrive in one hour (6:00 to 7:00 p.m.) on a weeknight and disperse two hours later. • The Downtown sites are located such that approximately 95% of the traffic arrives from the westerly direction. The Orange Bowl site is located such that approximately 60% arrives from the easterly direction and 40% from the west. • This analysis is based on a Stadium sellout (i.e., capacity crowd) • This analysis assumes that all Stadium traffic arrives via the freeway system. i • In reality, some Stadium patrons may be in the downtown area during the day for work, school or other purposes and may remain parked to attend a Marlins game. This analysis does not account for this. • Only one of the sites (Arena West) has existing convenient Metrorail access beyond the downtown area. Five of the sites (Bicentennial A, B and C, Park West and Riverfront ) have nearby Metromover access within the downtown area. Although some people may use Metromover once they reach the Downtown area, they were assumed to drive to get into the Downtown area. No transit service was assumed for the Orange Bowl site. Prepared by DMJM Harris — B_8 APPENDIX - B a UTILITY RELOCATION TIME AND COST We have estimated the time and cost required to relocate utilities for the stadium sites. Time Required Utility relocation is a critical step in the stadium construction schedule. It is assumed that some Stadium construction may commence as long as existing utilities are maintained in service, but the majority of construction cannot commence until the new utilities are brought on line and the existing utilities taken out of service. Following is an estimate of the time required to get to the point where the new utilities will be on line and the old utility lines can be taken out of service and the stadium constructed on the selected site. This schedule assumes the following: • No lapse in service for any utility (i.e., every existing utility will remain in service until its replacement is brought on line.) • One of the tasks in the design phase will be to identify where the utilities will be relocated to. Presumably, this will be a nearby street or streets that will remain open after the stadium is built. • All utilities will be relocated to the same street at the same time. This means that the street will be opened only once. After all the utilities have been relocated the utility cut will be closed and the street surface restored. This suggests that one designer be responsible for all utility design and one contractor be responsible for all utility construction. • In the case of Bicentennial "B", the existing right-of-way of Biscayne Boulevard may be able to remain as a utility corridor through expanded Bicentennial Park. If this option is feasible, it may not be necessary to relocate the utilities that are in Biscayne Boulevard. The following are the activities necessary to conduct the utility relocation phase of the project: • Start-up — (i.e., getting a utility design firm under contract and started) • Design of multiple utility relocations • Design coordination among multiple utility companies. This will be a time-consuming portion of the project because there are such a large number of utility companies involved and because they will all have to agree individually before any construction can be done. • Permitting. Permitting is usually time-consuming. It is assumed that permitting can be fast -tracked and overlapped with the design. O Construction F� tJt W r-reparea vy umim Harris B-9 APPENDIX - B a The following table summarizes the required time to relocate utilities for the Stadium project to the point where Stadium construction may commence. These are very ambitious estimates and assume the City will do everything it can to expedite the process. Utility Activity Alternative Site (months) Bice n. A Bice n. B Bice n. C Park Wes t Aren a West Rive r Fron t Orang e Bowl Orange Bowl Exp. Start -Up 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Design 4 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 Coordination 2 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 Permitting 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Construction 8 12 1 12 12 12 12 8 12 Total Time months 20 32 P2 30 30 30 22 28 Notes: If it is necessary to relocate the 72" force main in Biscayne Boulevard for Bicentennial Alternative C, this would require approximately 48 months for design and construction. If it is necessary to relocate the FPL Service Center for the Riverfront Site, this would require about 12 months to design and construct. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-10 APPENDIX - B Cost of Utility Relocation The following are the estimated costs of utility relocation for each stadium site: Utility Alternative Site ($ million) Activity Bice Bice Bice Park Aren Rive Orang Orange n. A n. B n. C Wes a West r Fron e Bowl Bowl t t Exp. Relocate Utilities $1.0 $7.2 $10. $6.8 $2.9 $1.0 $1.0 $2.4 4 Special Cases FPL Chiller Line $0.0 $0.01$0.0 $1.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 72" Force Main $0.0 $0.0 $35. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 Relocate FPL Service $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $52. $0.0 $0.0 Center 0 Total Cost ($ million) $1.0 $7.2 $45. $7.8 $2.9 $53. $1.0 $2.4 4 0 Notes: The cost to relocate the FPL chiller line was estimated at $1,000 per trench foot as supplied by FPL. The cost to relocate the 72" force main in Biscayne Boulevard is based on informal discussions with the Miami -Dade WASAD. The cost to relocate the FPL Service Center was estimated by FPL. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-11 C APPENDIX - B a Stadium Traffic Impact - Downtown Oriented Sites rreparea by VMJM Harris B-12 Traffic Volume Level of Service [1-395 West Project 1-395 East lof Project 1-95 North of 1-395 1-95 South of Downtown 1-395 West of Project 1-395 East of Project 1-95 North of 1-395 1-95 South of Downtown Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 2,250 3,169 5,348 2,865 B C E C + Stadium Traffic 3,250 650 7,150 1,950 + Premium Traffic 375 75 825 225 Existing + Stadium 1 5,8751 3,8941 13,3231 5,040 F D F E Departing Stadium 8:00-9:00 p.m. Existing Traffic 1,935 1,858 3,823 1,472 B B D B + Stadium Traffic 3,250 650 7,150 1,950 + Premium Traffic 375 75 825 225 Existing + Stadium 5,560 2,5831 11,7981 3,647 F C F D rreparea by VMJM Harris B-12 d APPENDIX - B 9 Existing Traffic 2,000 p + Stadium Traffic 3,900 + Premium Traffic 450 Existing + Stadium 6,3501 F Notes: Existing Traffic is one-way volume in same direction as traffic approaching the Stadium. Assumes basic number of through freeway lanes is three in each direction. vreparea vy L)MJM Harris B-13 l. -D C3Z G.9 APPENDIX - B M Stadium Traffic Impact - Orange Bowl Sites vreparea ny UMJM ►-rams 8-14 Traffic Volume Level of Service 1-95 North of SR 836 1-95 South of SR 836 SR 836 West of 1-95 SR 836 West of 17th Ave. 1-95 North of SR 836 1-95 South of SR 836 SR 836 West of 1-95 SR 836 West of 17th Ave. Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 5,348 4,119 3,922 4,471 E D D C/D + Stadium Traffic 7,150 1,950 9,750 3,250 + Premium Traffic 825 225 1,125 375 Existing + Stadium 13,3231 6,2941 14,7971 8,096 F F F F Departing Stadium 8:00-9:00 .m. Existing Traffic 3,823 1,858 3,541 2,614 D B C/D B + Stadium Traffic 7,150 1,950 9,750 3,250 + Premium Traffic 825 225 1,125 375 Existing + Stadium 11,7981 4,0331 14,4161 6,239 F C F F vreparea ny UMJM ►-rams 8-14 O fj Cit APPENDIX - B W Notes: Existing Traffic is one-way volume in same direction as traffic approaching the Stadium. Assumes basic number of through freeway lanes is three in each direction. 1'repareu by IJMJM Harris B-15 Traffic Volume Level of Service 17th Ave 12th Ave 17th Ave 12th Ave l:- EnteringStadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 738 356 C C + Stadium Traffic 5,200 7,800 + Premium Traffic 6001 900 Existing + Stadium 6,5381 9,0561 F F Departing Stadium 8:00-9:00 p.m. Existing Traffic 375 204 C C + Stadium Traffic 5,200 7,800 + Premium Traffic 600 900 Existing + Stadium 6,1751 8,9041 F F Notes: Existing Traffic is one-way volume in same direction as traffic approaching the Stadium. Assumes basic number of through freeway lanes is three in each direction. 1'repareu by IJMJM Harris B-15 MIAMI - DADE TRANSIT ENGINEERING FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: �%Sl� 5 COMPANY: -�� ,! iy!/ ADDRESS: PHONE NO_: &0 et oll Lo 2 FAX NO FROM: LEOPOLD VAN BERGEN MANAGER TRANSIT TECHNICAL SERvIcEs DATE: NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING. COVER PAGE): _ COADVIENI'S: i a c OFFICE NUMBER: 305-37:5-4504 FAX NUhWER: 305-37-'r,4.505 1 I1 Noshwcsc IscSUWL 9th Floor, &GwDL Rori&33I26-1999 ®i- 253 ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE FOR THE PROPOSED METROMOVER RELOCATION DUE TO MARLINS PARK AT DOWNTOWN PIWAZ= our : N= 7, 2001 DESCRIPTION COST CIVIL Gaideway-Double Track (S33.26 mill; n/mile x 036 mile) 511,971,878 ' ` Stations Cone Center platform @ 2.97 million each) $2,969,216 Fare Collection Equipment (S237.537 per station) $237,537 Utiluy Relocation $1,000,000 Sub -Total = $16,178,631 209'. contingency $3,235,726 Sub -Total = $19,414,357 Pscaladon @ 3.5% to mid point of construction (Jtme 01 to 3uae 05) $2,864,064 Sub -Total Civil Construction = TMX8,421 Environmental Engine g - IIS (?% of Civil Construction Cost) $445,568 Design (10'% of Construction Cost) $2,227,842 Art -in -Public Places (15% of Station Design and Civil Coustl oa Cost) $61,247 Engincexina Services During Construction (359'. of Constriction Cost) $7'79,745 Feld Supervision including MDTA staff (8556 of Construction Cost) $1,893,666 Metra -Dade County Contract Adminon (856 of Construction Cost) $1.782.274 TOTAL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION COST = - $29,468,763 SYSTEMS Ada= Systems (Adorn., Egg-, ATC, Com., DTS, PDS, Dyn. Gtapb,, Inst-, Test & S= -up $4,578,531 EsmIarion @ 3590 to mid -point of Systems Installation (June 01 to Jan. 06) $859,328 Sub -Total = $5,437,858 2090 contingency $1,087,572 Sub -Total Systems Cost = $6,525,430 -Dade County Contract Administration (2'% of Installation Cost) $130,509 $522,034 _Metro _ County Support of Systems installation and Testing (8% of Installation Cost) TOTAL SYSTEMS COST = •s7,i77-,973 TOTAL PROJECT COST (Construction and Systems Installation) 536,646.736 REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION & RELOCATION 5,000,000 ENVIl20-NNIT;NTAL REMEDIATION $2,000.000 SAFETY CERTIFICATION AND QUALTIY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS (I % of Total Project $366.467 PROGRAM RESERVE (590 of Total Project Cost) I $2,050,660 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATIONS OF MMWMOMOYER SYSTEM = $43,0634864 Note: Cost estimate was prepared based on the following assumptions I.- This is a conceptual cost estimatc and should be taken as such- ?. All unit costs are in 2001 dollars. 3. All costs, except Systems, are is 2001 dollars and these are escalated to the mid point of constriction, 06/05. 4. Systems cost is in 2003 dollars and it is escalated to 01/06- 5. The relocation alignment of the Metromover was assumed along rhe existing Biscayne Blvd - 6. Cost for demolition of the cxisdn; Metromover is not included in the cost estimate. 7. Does not consider revenue loss or cost of circulator bas service. 01- 253 ML4MI-DARE TRA Nffr MARt1N PARKS DawN ro" tYtE"rt omovm Rr ocx-aor;j xu. t)3/ot3=i . ,. RIVEASIDE METRORAIL STATION Probable Capital Cost December 1988 Construction Sub Total $19.740) Projected March 1999 Construction Cost $25.73 (2) Consultant Design and Engineering Services, and Consultant Services During Construction (Allow 150Q $3.86 -L- M DTA "Soft Costs' (Allow 21 %) $$.40) Projected March 1999 Total Capita( Cosi $35.00 (1) Construclion cost estimated by Gannett Fleming in the December 1988 report titled Rjv r de Center Transit Fembfiity Study, including contingency and construction reserve . Assumes that Federal funding requirements apply, and that there has been no combining with development construction contracts. (2) Estimate based on the Engineering Nems Record Building Cost. Index History (1916-1999). published Manch 22/ March 29, 1999, Volume 242, Number 12, where 1913 =100, and December 1988 = 2617 and Manch 1999 - 3411. (3) Current MDTA "Soft Cost Factor" includes inspewon services, safety, testing, and County administration. PBSJ 05/07/1999 3:23 PM 01- 253 Description $ Millions 1. Miscellaneous Unforeseen Modifications 0.11 2. General Requirements & Insurance 0.84 3. Mobilization _ 0.17 4. Site Work 0.59 5. Anger Grout Piles. 1.94 S. Elevator Drilled Shaft 0.03 7. Concrete, CIP 2.79 8. Reinforcing Steel 1.63 9. Precast/ Prestressed Concrete 0.78 10. Finishes 0.16 11. Ancillary Assemblies 0.12 12. Specialties 1-87 13. Elevators / Escalators - 1.74 14. Trackwork / Modifications 0.44 15. Mechanical 0.69 _ 16. •Electrical 0.82 17. Train Cord=1 2.63 18. Fare Collection 0.39 19. Station Graphics/ Fumiture 0.3 20. Artwork 0.21 21. Program Contingency (Allow 10% on Items 4-20) 1.59 December 1988 Construction Sub Total $19.740) Projected March 1999 Construction Cost $25.73 (2) Consultant Design and Engineering Services, and Consultant Services During Construction (Allow 150Q $3.86 -L- M DTA "Soft Costs' (Allow 21 %) $$.40) Projected March 1999 Total Capita( Cosi $35.00 (1) Construclion cost estimated by Gannett Fleming in the December 1988 report titled Rjv r de Center Transit Fembfiity Study, including contingency and construction reserve . Assumes that Federal funding requirements apply, and that there has been no combining with development construction contracts. (2) Estimate based on the Engineering Nems Record Building Cost. Index History (1916-1999). published Manch 22/ March 29, 1999, Volume 242, Number 12, where 1913 =100, and December 1988 = 2617 and Manch 1999 - 3411. (3) Current MDTA "Soft Cost Factor" includes inspewon services, safety, testing, and County administration. PBSJ 05/07/1999 3:23 PM 01- 253 0 N t • 250 ft. ► Possible Parking Q Possible Parking z Possible Parking Possible Parking ei NW 7th Street Total Site Acres: 35 Stadium Acres: 12 Remaining Acres for parking structure and landscaping: 23 Parking solution: A 6 to 8 story parking structure wrapping around 3 sides of the stadium ( one side is open for view towards city) to acommodate 6 to 8 thousand cars Roof. Sits above parking structure c Cr 0 � 2 -n rA=r 0 ORANGE BOWL SITE WITH FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED MARLINS STADIUM j3 .,i � � i _771 � SOS C�FV`C��T ' Pfotis•(, ZSo ct-�s � A qe4r r� Submitted in41 to the public record in conneWon ith its, _ oR / /d! Welter Foernan City Clerk ®rj - 2r 3 /J /Arpta= —saw V / gtyu 2I L ` / PK O �L � T � e3 Lj ��z�� ►aGti / Submitted in41 to the public record in conneWon ith its, _ oR / /d! Welter Foernan City Clerk ®rj - 2r 3 w-EE"F iH1J.HSDAY�AAACH TODAY MIAMI ..................... ........... ........................................ Miami Today is an independent voice of the community. It is published weekly at 710 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida. Mai's I bl'Paddr P.O. Box 1368, Miami, FL 33101. News suggestions may be telephoned'to 305-358-2663. For advertising and subscription inforn; io ca 11 305-35 r3 Rebuild. Orange Bowl as new Marlins.Sta§41m Building', a base ' ball stadium on Bi: centennial Park orel anywhere in its vi Y V•k � cinity-presents ma- x�.b� jor traffic and park- ing problems that could jeopardize downtown Miami's J.,& Espinel . revitalization and . • • • . adversely impact the Port of Miami and the Performing Arts Center. The Miami River site doesn't have: these problems.and makes optimum use - of our mass transportation system. The Florida Marlins object to this site on the grounds that they would have _ substantial construction staging prob- lems. This would increase the project's overall costs and'delay the project be- yond 2004. Rebuilding the Orange Bowl as abase - ball stadium could resolve the impasse over sites, provide a new stadium for Marlins' owner John Henry by 2004 at the lowest possible land cost and avert a looming problem for the City of Miami. With more than 25 acres, the Orange Bowl site can easily accommodate a 45,000 -seat ballpark, several parking structures, restaurants and other ameni- ties. Zoned for sports facilities and owned by the City of Miami, the property does not present significant land -use con- flicts and could be turned over to the Marlins at little or no cost. Construction here could move at a brisk pace. There is ample space for the construction staging process. All utili- ties are in place. With a future east -west rapid transit stop at its doorstep, close to State Road 836, Interstate 95, Metrorail, Tri -Rail and the proposed airport intermodal hub, the Orange Bowl site is conveniently located for fans in the tri -county area. Current SR 836 ramp access problems can be solved as part of planned ex - The Writer so, at least until 2015, without new revenue streams. Jorge Espinel is head of Miami Investing in further upgrades while Urban Watch. operating at a loss makes little sense. pressway improvements. Located close to the heart of Little Havana, the stadium would be a great gathering place and a fitting symbol for a community where baseball plays a key role in its cultural tradition and way. of life. For youngsters and senior citizens in the neighborhood, it would be within walking distance or a short bus ride away. A stadium similar to Baltimore's Camden Yards would enhance and in- vigorate Northwest Seventh Avenue, strengthen the character of the area and help revitalize Little Havana. Tomas Regalado, Miami's commis_ sioner for this area, backs the proposal. Recent discussions about this idea on Spanish radio suggest that there is sig- nificant support for the baseball sta- dium project at the Orange Bowl. Some argue that tearing down a land- mark that holds so many memories for Miamians is unthinkable, But rebuild- ing the Orange Bowl as a ballpark would breathe new life into a stadium that might have to be torn down in a few years. Built in 1929; this aging building has major structural, maintenance and op- erational problems. As reported in a recent Miami Herald article, Miami of- ficials note that it will cost at least $500,000 just to repair the deteriorated connection plates holding the structure together. And this, after the city used $10 million in bond financing in the mid -'90s to upgrade the press box, im- prove seating and paint the facility. The stadium is not being used to ca - Miami could soon find itself with yet another white elephant on its hands. Why not make the best use .of this opportunity to create a state-of-the-art stadium that would still afford fans the experience of attending a great sports event at this location while preserving the role of this landmark site in Miami? No doubt the existing contract with the University of Miami and how this project would affect Hurricane games needs to be given careful attention. But the main concerns are wlfether the Marlins are sincere in their state- ment that their fundamental priority i_. not Bicentennial Park but having a sta- dium built by 2004; whether Miami leaders have the foresight to take ad- vantage of this once-in-a-lifetime op- portunity to make great lemonade out of lemons, and whether Miami commis- sioners are willing to place the interests of Miami as a whole over private inter- ests or those of their district. - MIAMITODAY miamitodaynews.com FOUNDED JUNE 2. 1983 VOLUME XVIII No. 40 Entire contents 02001 Miami Today To contact us: News (305) 358.266, Advertising (305) 358-100 Classifieds (305) 579-02 Subscriptions (305) 358-261a .) Reprints (305) 358-26t t Editor and Publisher / Michael Lewis �a �t Vice President / Catmen Betancourt-Lewis Managing Editor / Diann Slattery ' international Editor / Michael Hayes Copy Editor'/ Cliff Bowden Advertising Manager 1 Kristine Cartwrights Art Director / David Chartres r. `7/ BPA I pacity. Its major tenant, the University of Miami Hurricanes, play only six games a year there. It is losing about $600,000 a year and will continue to do MIAMI TODAY (ISSN: 0889.2296) is published weekly for $70 per year, airmail' to Europe $190 per Year. the Americas $140 per Year. Individual copies $1. Published by Today Enterprises Inc.. 710 Brickell Avenue. Miami. Florida 33131-2810. USA Periodicals postage paid at Miami, FL. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MIAMI TODAY. PO BOX 1368. MIAMI. FL 33101-1368. . . PERSPECTIVA MIRADOR .; Orange Bowl: el ),!'tnejor sitio para el 'estadio de beisbol JORGE ESPINEL l� 1 Parque del Bicentena- rio puede ser el lugar preferido por los Mar- lins para su nuevo esta- d[b� pero el sitio mas acertado para este proyecto es sin duda e;terreno del Orange Bowl. Cob mas de 25 acres, este t4rreno puede albergar facil- mente un nuevo estadio de baseball y varias estrueturas de parqueo con tiendas y res- taurantes a nivel de la calle. Como la propiedad perte- nece a la ciudad y esti zonifi- cada para usos deportivos, su costo seria minimo y no daria pie a objeciones como en el caro del Bicentennial Park. El terreno tiene todos los servi- cios de infraestructura, esti centralmente ubicado y es facilmente accesible desde eualquier parte del condado. En el futuro proximo tendra una parada en la linea de trans- pgrte rapido que se esti plane- ando del aeropuerto al centro de la ciudad. Un estadio en esta localizaci6n embelleceria y revitalizaria la calle 7 del NW y le daria un gran impulso eco- nomico a La Pequena Habana. Pero quizas la raz6n mas importante para ubicar el nuevo estadio en el terreno del Orange Bowl es la relaci6n que tendria con la comunidad. EI baseball juega un papel pre- ponderante en la cultura a his- toria de Cuba y la region del Caribe. zPor que no localizar el estadio en el corazon de La Pequena Habana, donde ten- dria un significado especial y ayudaria a enaltecer los valo- res de esta comunidad? Ade- mas, si bien es cierto que una. buena cantidad de asistentes al juego vendran de La Pequena Habana, Ono seria maravilloso que la Bente de mayor edad y ,l"itados recursos, asi como tambien familias con sus nh os, pudieran caminar o tomar el bus al estadio, y evitar 61 alto costo de parqueo en el contro de la ciudad? ZY no seria muy bueno tambien que los principales caminos hacia el estadio se convirtieran en bellos paseos peatonales borde- ados por restaurantes y cafes? Incluso,se podria establecer un museo de baseball en las cercanias del estadio y muchos otras atracciones relacionadas con la historia de este deporte, que convertirian a la zona en una atracci6n turistica unica en la Florida. LPor que no se podria lograr esto en el down- town de Miami? Porque el exito de un proyecto como este depende no solo de los Marlins, sino tambien de la existencia de una comunidad activa y vibrante a su alrededor, d is- puesta a ayudar a sacar el pro- yecto adelante. Y la verdad es que en el downtown de Miami esta condicion no se cumple. Sin dada, La Pequena Habana es la comunidad que tiene mayor posibllidad de alcanzar este objetivo. En cuanto a la objeci6n de que el Orange Bowl es un sitio hist6rico que no se deberia alterar, es importante tener en cuenta que el Orange Bowl fue construido en 1929, que esti bastante deteriorado y que tiene grandes problemas estructurales y operacionales. De acuerdo a un articulo publi- cado en el Herald reciente- mente, sera necesario invertir medio millon de d6lares solo para reparar los conexiones de acero que mantienen la estabi- lidad de la estructura. Ademas, el estadio esta subutilizado. Su principal usuario, los Huraca- nes, juega solo seis juegos al ano aqui. El estadio pierde $600,000 anualmente y conti- nuara perdiendo esta suma por to menos hasta el 2015. El costo de mantener esta estructura durante los pr6ximos anos puede ser cuantioso. En tal caso, no habria otra option que cerrar el estadio. Miami ten- dria en sus manos otro elefante blanco que seguramente, a la larga tendria que tumbar. ^r que no localizar el estadio -en el corazon de La , Pequena Habana, donde tendria un significado especial I.: y ayudaria a enaltecer los valores de esta comunidad? s importante recordar que muchas obras de arquitectura de especial interes hist6rico, como las grandes catedrales g6ticas, ban sido reconstruidas varias veces. Si bien estariamos cam- biando las caracteristicas externas del Orange Bowl, de todas formas tendriamos una gran catedral del deporte que le brindaria al fanatico una mejor eaperiencia, y quc segui- ria jugando el mismo papel como landmark o punto de referencia importante en Miami. En efecto, to que estari- amos haciendo al reciclar la estructura existente seria brin- darle nueva vida a un estadio al que le quedan pocos anos de existencia en su condici6n actual. LPor que no, entonces, aprovechar esta oportunidad y reconstruir el Orange Bowl como un nuevo y bello estadio de baseball, que duraria por to menos 100 anos mas? Reconstruh- el Orange Bowl como un estadio de baseball tiene muy- pocos problemas y si puede resolver el conilicto actual de d6nde ubicar este proyecto. Lo que se necesita es que la comunidad y nuestros lideres politicos apoyen esta alternativa, y que los Marlins asuman una posici6n mas fle- xible en sus negociaciones con la ciudad. En esto es necesario recordar que uno de los objeti- vos de este proyecto es lograr un acuerdo que beneficie tanto a los Marlins como a Miami. Construir un estadio en el Orange Bowl seria la mejor forma de lograrlo. Ademas, ese gesto de buena voluntad por parte de los Marlins les brinda- ria el respaldo de muchas per- sonas que ahora se oponen a un estadio en el Parque del Bicentenario. int® the public Sutted rd in conncctoa `H' J 1tw —L'� moaner��=n city clerk jor�cspincd'�es.cnm nrquilrrtu y Id. irioid(ir, diritie el Miami Urban 4V.uch• orpanizdc itin no lucrativa dr dicada a examinar proyec- los urbano, rleule cl punto &, vivta dvI intcr(•s publico. (0 FI Nuevo Herald 01'.-- 1)2 pr. 48 �— Appr. 24 blocks --s j :01 i-� 11 ]Rkrk points Parking capacli;' I . ar.cs . 200 cars Park K Parking Requirements for a baseball stadium: 20,000-30,000 spaces 150 spaces for buses Area for parking 0350 sq. ft/car -160 - 240 acres Max. cap. typical block is appr. 400 cars Surface parking needed: 48-72 city blocks Blackened city blocks account for less than 20,000 parking spaces —► However, many of these blocks are not available or cannot be used for parking Miami vs. Baltimore Parking Distribution Biscayne Bay natural barrier Because of Miami's geography and the Park's location by the water, parking can not be evenly distributed to reduce its negative impact on the city Miami vs. Baltimore �N m In cities like Baltimore an excellent rapid trar*it3 system reduces parking needs. Parking is m-Or�' ? evenly distributed around the stadium, thus it has less of an impact on the urban fabric. Conclusion: A stadium on Bicentennial Park would overwhelm the downtown area with parking lots and turn It Into a no -man's land similar to what we have had around the Knight Center, Government Center and the two arenas for years. A STADIUM ON BICENTENNIAL PARK - PARKING ISSUES i T l ♦ e w } _ e T s ♦ ♦ ! I ' ! 7 T ♦ s e ® r fi 4 T � n BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS «. C a PRESENTATION TO: _50 CITY OF MIAMI March 15, 2001 Evaluate eight different sites for a new baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins Apply various site selection criteria (costs.. timing, impact on neighborhoods, etc.) Evaluate sites and define opportunities & constraints C3 Coa Organize methodology for site recommendations �. gY �3T � 3 �j Legg Mason Real Estate Services (Philadelphia, PA) Real Estate Finance & Advisory Services RELEVANT SPORTS EXPERIENCE4 cn Camden Yards (Baltimore, MD), Ballpark at Arlington (Arlington, TX), San Antonio Cl Spurs, Pittsburgh Steelers, Pittsburgh Pirates, MCI Center (Washington Wizards & Capitals), Comcast Corporation (Philadelphia Sixers & Flyers), PaeTec Park = r (Rochester, NY) 4 T 18 Offices along East Coast; $2.8 Billion in Real Estate Financing ander r Equity Commitments in Fiscal Year 2000; Over $10 Billion in Assets �' Serviced or Under Management. r Hammes Company(Madison, W►) Real Estate Development & Project Management Services RELEVANT SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE Lambeau Field Redevelopment - Home of the Green Bay Packers Ford Field & Ford Warehouse - Home of the Detroit Lions Miller Park - Home of the Milwaukee Brewers C1 Bradley Center Redevelopment - Home of the Milwaukee Bucks Kohl Center - Home of the Wisconsin Badgers Firstar Center, Cincinnati, Ohio First Union Arena, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania CD University Place, Madison, Wisconsin Spillis Candela DMJM(Coral Gables, FL) Architecture and Master Planning Services RELEVANT EXPERIENCE American Express Corporation AT&T Bank Boston Bell South Citicorp Club Med Disney Development Corporation MCA/Universal Studios w The Rouse Company t a , ♦ f ♦ a r a • . e ♦ 2 a x_ {�;ayrrrl� 1r Stafford Sports (Medford, NJ) Investment Banking, Negotiating and Development Services Osterholt Consulting(Ft. Lauderdale, FL) m� Governmental Affairs � aff. ro 57 FREDERIC R. HARRIS, Inc. (Miami lakes, FL) S? Engineering Services n S Er Evans Environmental & Geosciences (Coral Gables, FL) Environmental Consulting Services • 40,000 seat stadium • 60 luxury suites • 5,000 premium seats, 4,000 bleacher seats and 31,000 general admission seats • 1,500 -car parking garage • Retractable roof with natural turf and air conditioning � T S i • x a e a s � e l T e ♦ � s � e F z i � • Encompassing the latest ballpark design elements • Enhancing the experience of the attendees • Maintaining flexibility to safeguard against obsolescence • Capturing appropriate revenue streams m� a to CL m�M ej ?FF CONSTRUCTION PARKING SOFT COSTS $340,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 $ 30,000,000.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $385,000,000.00 m� a n 3 ° a CDe CITY MAP 40 Ia'" • "'j' rYr , • 1 i _ M i ,• ,. ,: � �, _.. �-... _ `�: 1.• . `111 . �_' 1 �� 4 i 1.- . l .y y (�.w �s� �•� r iii { ,�, , °� _ ,; F f, ,. _ . a : n 7! .1. �. - fl • � ; -: -...� 1-:=-... `' - -,.t,. - � .i.A. � jar I",�,,., . T ' •:.pry ::� �- t 1 � � ar`>t'"` _.� ++ f, iA • �„ k:` ' '�*► �' 1~ + ' �� fes' � � ::r4.. �R ,ie•I..•..t •r ..�' -- �° •�.yt .1 �'' �r y'yC `� k� i 1 '+�— •�'� � ~p�� Ww .41 AN t �-ig M ; ��Hy• i �,. � �;'�. ~ �1'�r��� 1 �,' �• f�`, ,y; . ,t �-yrr � yrT�ypr �M � ,,� �!, •+ -1 .�+� .a .• FBF y 1► � - ,rte � :. � +• hr � , +..� 1� • r ' _c (j h 'iii .- ,' , #- s • l •' T �. �]j ' � � + ,� t i � t�,F,t '�,�.�ya�''S' w f. -r' .. �L- , .,,,,,,�:., `�;#�•.a•#sr.+s►-.r.�.e } � T .1,,' � y, • �,,�, r �-'"�- -.r' • ice`. � f_"1 �• .!•d•�'� _h �, +�4 ,;�•, is d�h t"Rr"�D►1 1. i . ` � 4r �y-�Js� t L y .'}'!"1x `1 1 ' t� ,_f� • ��--*) 1 Z _r`:�t�� ` �_? ♦'W` --� _ �'�`' < IA RAYi rrii i+' S L ' • ���, fir, �-.+' l.. �.. •_ �, / .�� 7"$� � 'R. � � + - + .� � \� 1�r f .:+..Ij� ,, },_ ■�r �4-'t „n_ C '.� ta. y'."f '• t!� " F �i *�Y� '�. }> ��� i •a }}''A'A � ,� I� r � , "1 � ^. � . i Sri a c ` ; it _- �'"��G •'�' i .. - } A .� ti r y,;. t J►. !'�Y -fl "R 4 ` }, Y`q! - do 1. �aS i '�ir.t •+ � V r to t� .�a .]r, • .+.rft „i� ,�,� t � � � � _ 1 1� ,. 'r i � -a ..1''' L k i i .;, ,� ," 4 tF. -!_ wy,.'' 1 � yT• i,f! r-�. ?�., _ i j , i. !� 1't �s_ y �. �J k�v t{ . ( r ika `i `� ! r �•r a1lt1R'� pw Igo S � �+n '" +A#•.,, '� � '� '� ` �, y 1 y �„� �� � Z• 1 .� � IR• : • F , ` .v.yr C` 'rt ux ' � ' ,,,. � -.1 r -t � �+.. � � � i , .• +v.r ,.•, V ' •� a� � . �"..' wJ'' i ,.' ��`r�:,,+'•-.� � . � 5 ' _ �' 441M C iw ���:`I i� +I,' ' I + t�Y�� kw.+ I +�� �`IA ,�r,�f�N.'1.;�a� •, r•• `I ° 'i" ,,.,/�' x �� r do, F�t_iNt fly + F 5i r -f ra [ 1 E ifa1+mR►Ar'i7 Her -.1 r ' Q �. 'w,i .-�,.,.. a _�'' • .�' �" �1fi� v' 6}r, Yf..,y �' ~�� �t rj •° '4= fk � �' s,, �` .t r• ,f ",d 1. - �4i -,� ,`�'�tiA k ,trr i• t � ���.'�' � • Its !.. j Y V ... + , •tUr •. •,,ty `J `�-a S �" i r i } f .f ' i may, I y pt •F �- t .1 ^"1'.t�- �' �ry f�i°.•k i' I{ t f r. p� fp wt _ 1 �� yli�' '! iJ.- A -;�' # � ir_1 • ry 14 1 J s i : } i.+.I�AMSr. e T' ii A ♦ t ° � .S r� t� • J _ y �� toy• 3t lwri��`�C, L �� �:�*',�''- ,.-ktl�; �+ �,� rl'" .�V•°�� ", ?r' �. tr� ��� �• ,�'�t t►'..! _._•�-� ip>�' ra'�,,�.`�� �''j, a.' =J� • �*� i ti'A'r ci r� i. ! x ilk' .r`* • � ` � �- • 11 � � i / i jf 11 � 1 ai+. • 1 t� 111 • �„ � .#7 �" � 1 _ � '. 4• '1 r � •._. �•� _ � � M tY fIt! •fi,..� � � y ria I r _ I �,',S 1.1 ^�1�. •It� ; - •; ��., a`�yt'�� �. ��_a.c;�•, i'�'�.+tea "ya�1 j. '� 6 �.�,�t� � f 1 �� f' � �-�"'i, • ).. r1i t ,1M i r } - a - - �l . _ r i'� . r : �t '.,W. _.k :L.r<�aik_!t :7r i� �'•! r • . �+ '�����i CITY MAP WAP 1 . <. � v`yr . #1� � t � '" �,..Cy,.r ' -a � }'.' � t • V�� �� r p _ �M.• �r� �- � ( {� ' - • �t r 16. s a A {, ` h+ ` S ♦.. p�.r 47�t .1! 1 i7,1� , r "�'�`""+� CJ '. •-. �.. „a, s • „' `1 a '1 7 S fir' - syy, - t � _ 'r'"° - .t - ,. �`r ,•'""` � .a. y „ }� >' ` .P�• , � I� f _ �.t� -v, ,,.���((('''�. �"°"�• ',`' mirV!!T fir '� '► Al� T Avg a . ♦ iii .. � � _ �',... r � .. r� . � : �� �1""' a r . •^ a� �+ L� 1 t,•� '7'17 f '"!•+..... , + i • �+L - S : xk. A.A....�,+ i..d•� '. y[ "t n. r} t,`¢ µ _t rt � • j �, ,e / �a �1, .�. •��- •.i rt-✓.. rrte�~r � ,k .++�.r. - L ! �F T F'rl rr a'M'r'�L" 1 .' •. . F fi'} y �. a ► °r. , Y i . ' i J1 y '� !1 _� 'Nrcpr • 17 if a 1 r ,f` y `/`� 4 + • = �tw,. 'r ,+y •., t-� 4.6 _l.ie; #Tp' `,"- ` - y .I ,�. .. [i A I +' '�a+^ .i_ + pr may' t "W%. � y i • t * �i .3 {�' % / MTT Y BC Paik Orange Bowl �. r4=j'-L"`vr,.'�''� ; • K 4+s I I� •h` r%'j�jl tI r �S ' � � ] _ i �• x � �►�- t•',t' h ,�+` a - #' ,` Jj_' ,r,; 3e... ��i._ � '` ..-.,,,. � r 1• , •�' 4 r .`�1( 1i ^z S�.za'^+t +'-r �++-'.I��"uir'"� � ' r ' ►,-� . s. � x ���' ti .yt�ttyl� 1 _ ♦ 'I T` :rj.. 7/. } '`.� tl .y#1I� 1 r _+ i+ '!• 'u ! '3 '64' -, .�,"Ng�� �vn .� -f i�" '�i��t 54 ♦• of ` _• • • ^>.♦..•. a+ ,, t'eMfle••�;f I f�� .. � �"` `�'-- a aN111W �~ J• � -* ; ''�_ �! N.!� r :., ,,'�d� #1i• ,fir �ay��. �_}'��'►"{ �� r�, � ` ' � ..1, � - 4� � Z�' _ � _ i r'" ♦ `� ``��**��� ^ Orange Bowl �' all.. • Y' . e114 _ 1 J ,y `" 41■ iii Expansion _'. ,'r � � sly ' "j ' t16. , .'„ t f'r Y . ,,,t �i 1 r ` r F �♦ •Iry /� 'r .- II"•V►r � �-a 1 ,k r L �• � . � � � N �y.itt�. `"'f ' .5� �} "'1!r'r . „ r, � � . 2L7 r. �� .i► w� yam"' �r fi`I ��r � ,,.,• ' e - = r +4 r L!. � 4 r r t rE+ i �,... - ;,. � ...+ -+,r- '•" '+r•:r. + � �' '�G Tjiy i� �. �.{ r r +..r `^ .Cf1 • J r f -e A * ,,.+ �.•! ''y' Iti. p r r (' iverfront `• } - _ t' .}4, '1' (F4 ^'Y 1 r►1 i y...'rE,M„tr= _ tom' t.`i. f. 1,4 - .'�'dt� •_-fit t ,� y . �' L -dti 11 1••j�,a� # r ,. '. • '" wi''0. _ _ .rl+ 9 t d ^ r1 _ fu Ifs t t e�'•rj: l il"''�;: i� .!l,�ai #„j,. • _♦ � � '�1 � t �,-- art+-(�;,,,!,.•,.,�I, y` ui�1 ' v r } � � f .. r , r� - d-- t .11f � L - •rA� . +�� !c^., ..�/- �,• •.f • Y � .+INwut. ,• i „ �iiil air t yr+a , y + lits w. ��� r,-,1 ,' � ;i It .iaSY-1+ • lop i 4 .� °'�; t I `1'�-` lu t :� = ► •`i e„r•�.r11:•��etr�1.4 � - _"� r ,+.w+ -, L', �i� ;, �•" �"'. �% � • •� , l'4 . ' r� �r � fr «t'l. '+ �+ 4.•. f yi.L ,si � C vhf •li ' !� ♦ �'� ,. „Ii"IK 1 All .� �'� y ,. � at �•�,. r . 't'• ..,1 Lt •- � # �,,,�' � ..� _ R �.' !I: �`'�. -}+ r `!; N�. I r,' ? ° I,+rr : f.=°l - 1"' .• --ti -.rr+..� r; l f ''' i1 � �+tt �' 71' •>`a► J. _.�r A _•"r~. � •'S- y- `.'-till .-� -1' it : '' �� -� `' r :_ = ,drl.: 1' �..»_ vi+r 1 {r�i�-L.�'r,�,^� •'iPT�rI'' .�'a ;�'Ittf ,�� #�'r :: t f ��K t/�!!,1Y.�`:i� %� � � �`'� 1 # frr '�� .: f t•1 '!.r � � ti o* iJ *�: �r.' � i -' !��'_Y" � �"Ir,i� � � '-.r1r`j � �'' ,. fillii 'sf-�t ? h. d r41 �-' � - �ie • .ret f 4j �; �,� *�= �,'�, � 4 } -..},; N 1 • �� l� i � fl �..tr,'� t`1E- � }`.. ��h�...,�!_ ' .f yi 1't •- r �i1' i a.. ' .. -'� .•1r r _* .�• e•.r ir' .•'�ti; •i .,•..If,s�'.�„ . , Ytsip.+ .{71��' 'r�� _ '�. r� ' Functional and Programmatic Issues Access to the Site Vehicular Mass Transit Pedestrian Impact on Neighborhoods Traffic Parking Community Integration 1' 1' Timing Related to Land Assemblage Land Acquisition Movement of Utilities Roadway Improvements Environmental Clean -Up Bownsfields Elgibility Economic Development Impact Potential for adjacent development Economic impact to the City 4� Development of Regional Impact a Costs 111' Used Florida Marlins' Baseline Data (Initial Budget)93 0 ' G Provided general additions or reductions to the Initial Budget R S� 0 ARENA WEST SITE co C' 3� �= �L n oc_- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Alp, . F 7 .. 1 A Ir a le • a v r s r ,s QQ 1' didAr J • p ILI ARENA WEST F uals and/or entities own 14T ndivid / entities � arcels within this site Q OL M o- n cD c cr 11 A /1TCInILft- T1/'►tft- ARENA WEST F uals and/or entities own 14T ndivid / entities � arcels within this site Q OL M o- n cD c cr PERSPECTIVE III - 'a w. r c I WE A Alm, @ Ns w. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT Limited spin-off development CL 5 0 0 or 0 ENVIRONMENTAL L - Environmental issues exist to be addressed Laundry, dry cleaners, photo shops, printers lb Brwr�f �S f x dY I Lowest off-street parking demand ssible from the Metrorail, Metromover and 1-95 m 0 CD �. 0, o T OO � �D � ` tT ;7ni* ",-WWI long _717 vq�"Icw V %0 V 1�1 IMF WWII' I ILA I IN W kEIR tIOMhl Lack of positive synergy with current developments (PAC, AA Arena) Issue of scale is a concern given residential northern boundary Looking South with Government Center in Background 'NAM ME& . , t The City of Miami making its final site selection and/or alternate(s); The City of Miami identifying and securing funding sources to assemble land (if necessary); The development of a finance plan to fund the construction of the stadium that is consistent with the resolution passed and adopted by the Miami City Commission on February 15, 2001; The extent of environmental remediation. c.� Elm Site Acquisition Infrastructure Stadium Design t Construction :a"&.l4" :1 2 r Year 1 Year 2 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months Year 3 Year 4 30 Months ARENA WEST Year 5 �C Cr a� 0 0 V c AIM �n BICENTENNIAL PARK OPTION A V/ Q n2• _. 3r n . O �,w Acr •I -7 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN o Air 16 Vol. 14 Comprised of approximately 19.42 acres +p F Property, owned by tie City of- I , i a p a F n " { tit: robtional re "4r C No relocation of Biscayne Boulevard CL g .�1 CL I�r �ryGY( 0-4 M :r R F R6 1� C 6r+ ^�tl����ryryry ilk q klf�o i PERSPECTIVE 11 r ! r a � r a. � � a r a a r ♦ r ► f x ° 4 ! s z a IC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ENTAL nmental issues addressed Biscayne Chemical Company, Belcher Asphalt and p ""Car Aki- trucks access Blvd. (Port) l:, oil AW on EN'OF REGIONAL IMPACT DRI 1 4 I At DRI con VIA ix In's .............. 01 H Looking North with AA Arena in Foreground UINaNIJJ IIkiFAMlv&Cf04:I=l Year 1 Year 2 Site Acquisition I 6 Months Infrastructure 9 Months Stadium Design 12 Months C� Construction Year 3 Year 4 pp - 30 Months B -PARK "All All Year 5 BICENTENNIAL PARK OPTION B cn g � a a 5 CD n� c cr G� 0 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN • 7p PERSPECTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT Moderately reduces the amount of prime developable land on Blvd. Idol ' Limited positivew.,dev lopmenteS tw6rd Mmy a fyty t. .yuMn COMMUNITY IMPACT Minimal disruption to residential neighborhood Provides open space -figa Various regulatory issues filling slip (DERM, etc.) -, ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental issues exist to be addressed Biscayne Chemical Oil Company +"� �1 . ,.r $ 4W 6^" tom. W Company, Belcher Asphalt and p F'' �FWL�a.ka �.k 4 M1. ACCESS m Or o �g 50 /o of trucks access Blvd. (Port) a I. Off-streetarkin demand consistent with other CL 00 p g downtown sites 0� _ _- - Close proximity to Metromover �a Pedestrian connections bavetobe�de�ela e _ p d Potential parking%traff1lc co.l fli is with o' thar voince in Downtown DRI --arid fou West DRI i � Y .. theast-Overttvn CO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS CL � 59 Closure of streets NE 12th and 11th Street and 10th 100 Street east of 2nd Avenue) will negatively impact ro on the Cit rid U City C .� �- Views of the bay from Biscayne Boulevard and PAC will be affected Looking North with AA Arena to the Right i once MAIN Site Acquisition Infrastructure Stadium Design 1 Construction Year 3 Year 4 B -PARK B„ W1111111111111111W Year 5 Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 15 Months Relocate Biscayne Blvd Fill Slip z wCn 0 0 Stadium -12 Months n 0 z g a n � � Stadium - 30 Months 5� :ZY SCHFn1J1 F Year 3 Year 4 B -PARK B„ W1111111111111111W Year 5 Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 15 Months Relocate Biscayne Blvd Fill Slip z wCn 0 0 Stadium -12 Months n 0 z g a n � � Stadium - 30 Months 5� BICENTENNIAL PARK OPTION C c c cr a. ` CL 0 n c� :03 -a Ca zor v' PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN • NAM �VrrWIMVMI.Vr1.rA6i0MdW 6- Park C„ 1" ;. M ■ Compriec1 of apprroximatetof p �Oc y. �H^h wn 1 ,fin `a' n¢ *,�,,.� I I t isca iPA UAW & recreational a- titie's °own 14 parcels withi, n al�ljx , n � roperty is cu rrenti . Cr of Iiar�.r� edAme frame a CL r qqo "42 V C O/ oulevard as relocated to the .. east PERSPECTIVE I �us �yiN ' x Emr n a 4 b" w# . a roll d � 9 y IYd HR � Y li A W b $ . T ilWEh r r IF: u�k y, T'/' ■ 1 -liar 41 ate AAs to d i u m MUNITY IMPAC + A Minimal disruptiorry 4" pss of 30% par �i•Y — y;, v r b :19KOI � B -PARK IfiC„ •` x " m , w t nchors (PAC 9,.'d,. Y , Vfib ntage along. pment westward.ofl tt 01 I" yl •plv "4M a W'�yd * ei � Y Y � Y w Y • � r - . e � p . s p Y I e, w : IKSI i k4o.19Ir *141 i r 1 fit 4 � i � ■ �" hul � a i i i AV ►ESS 4 50% of trucks a. Off-street parkin tiY ., owntown sites )I "Close W �:r - "Close proximit� t { AIp M -Fedestriciff" Potential park B -PARK ASC!! Blvd) �T� a. ,.. ,' N't nanc k ��17It }k M ,ACL er �p r. b + w �r + to be wa .. acts with . b Cq n, b h w A • ♦ r w • II � f r s w C 47 D "VFLOP E OF I NA[Ai ` IC` w..1�11i th i -Dwt Park West DRI CL n r� , � eao i C-lw� C " ln{ i � r x' I � _ v e } 7 x 4 t T * t e i r . x � t s t x T • a _ t a ! s x w M OTHER CONSIDERATIONS T, .a . - Eliminates existing + ommerciAl development area sed m Views of the bay fr ��Ihe " w ' � a -cif the sta Po Wi f l be s g n i ca ntfy u A Changes'history f,%and -Vt8UatbIMbIe"""F'I o Biscayne Blvd.' Locates tie stadium in the direct axis f visu lines of awayne Blvd. F Y L Iri ,e a .nom 3 M. � Looking East with Bay View Obstructed I Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 1 Site Acquisition I 12 Months Infrastructure Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 24 Months Relocate Biscayne Fill Slip Stadium Design 12 Months Q h - F Construction Stadium - 30 Months mCr� C a. CL CD CD Cr ORANGE BOWL ffi 7. 0 �� v ?n PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Wpl , -r -- , y ��." , ,� .� _I " � , �_ krI Wig, /�'R � :fit ► ! !, 441 1 0.r s._. • ` •✓< } Y.. 1' ..'� ^f i `.,T - i7io Lj 1 jio s " r . i m 1� 1 Vol f 41 =+ ins Ki+ '7[.16. 11C ".� %'76r'�"r1 �" � `_.• ,� f ._.. � • ��-���.4, � � •�'+ � �/' j .,1 y'!� +i'��F ,_��� � l,, . Wim. 1 " ��� 1 •/ Yk 9 } f - , A so1 r6, ,1 ,Comprised. of approximately 35.95 acres Located in arimaril residential ar`+�_��. p v The rope �i s curie rre nt � v, ownedb ihe � . City�.� o� � f Miamt," but it is encumbered by a nine-year use agreement (University of Miami) PERSPECTIVE 7'k lays NOW 4ili �, � '� �� � " �. � "* ,x � � a � "� �„ �a,.�., � p� "«. as T� �r �. '� "�, � � � �k ''",�,� "�," ^• „�'+�t , "MI► d � '�`, � "'e�.�.: M '"iMh _ "�►'+4 .i. u�uu,'.Ni r �`.�'��J ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT Extremely limited spin-off' 0110"A t No interaction with CBD 4 otl -1 COMMUNITY IMPACT,,,-r,�` M Signif I SiVptt fie''residentiol- dar r 1 neigtibo 'hood.- w it -h increased events (over 76' per year) fa CO 8C R 0 0 9 M W11 I IIIA 01 FA ENVIRONMENTAL -Environmental issues exiS b I Service station laundty No Brownsfields fund nq A j SS, "AL ir CCE No mass` transit --access Indirectly accOMble via Highway 836 Requires residential streets to disperse traffic I CCO Cr a 08 ORANGE BOWL UTILITIES - $1 million (est. Requires contri#oo r of Biller plant 1.117, Av k A T a'n n " Pn rYN w' "�- wgiNy "13 . dray i env:..; � ., �` i -v DEVELOP EN OF'R ,� O NA A T a M Notwith10, in a e,�stin p k OTHER CONSIDERAT ONS" Debt of $13.8 million (secured byr.prro ei m , The stadium would be out of scale to tie surrounding homes 3� 7 3 r 3N Looking Eastward to the Downtown big, ■ . . . . . . . . . . Site Acquisition I Infrastructure Stadium Design t =Construction C.� ORANGE BOWL EXPANSION Cn 8C t? Q C7 �� n PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN +. -. • j� s rw F.__' LP a x • 4.OP f ' — y s 1 T7 .-�.- - '� it { , • f 1 r' � s ; :r Orb de e t aa!! ".r",+.awAt* t j +' - 1� `r Ip Comprised of approximately 15.7 acres ELOPMENT IMPAC limited spin-off development tion '-with r -,-CBD Use Si Iresmy neighborhood -wit' I ificed'Ased evbhtgr (over 80 per year) 18 CL 0 0 RL No mass transit access Indirectly accessible via-- Highway '.$ 6"'," Requires residential s S t ffic CO �� _fig UTILITIES $2 million to $3 million �* Requires construction of, chiller plant APO- '44- VOR• A r .REVE t an eTxi �ri RI OTTER CONSIDERATIONS Ca - The stadium would be out of scale to the s surroundin -hares - Distance from downtown will not associate the m o p site with urban revitalization efforts `-' 1Cr ?C) ! f f Y 1 • T ! } • T Y T ; ! r ! T f T f ! ! ! IN001MI10F±ll ra:104:1�� Year 1 Year 2 Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure 18 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction Year 3 Year 4 OB EXPANSION pp - 30 Months Year 5 PARK WEST c3 ca PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ^ , ' . ; _,•- �.. a �..' � .-, .. �,. ', � . • _ . _ ��,,.,• � , ... -m _ Vic,,.,.-.. 1P :r c'w• '' 4 -51 .� oil i tk 741 Sol "K P + wel' z r '�s r z y cr � u a� N .. s PERSPECTIVE eri !q dL I 4ftMj .00 Ar Oz T7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT -( Positive synergy with anchors PAC and AA Arena) Positions land for greatest amount of other commercial develo m nt pighbdrho''od H act tQx I eLe .......... JACr ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental issues exist to be addressed Industrial -type properties, chemical companies, service stations., f U 9 funding Eligible,113rq 4,, now , J4, M i"QE, 4, ®r - CO a 0 0 0 CD Q Cr ACCESS 54% of trucks access 1St Avenue (Port) - Off-street parking demand consistent with other ballpark downtown" sates' - Pedestrians, c nh inns to park and arena required CIO zF i cox m . . uer - 4 sre0a. p fc1 " Street and!, g4d (i I e 1�`e _,. �tuC c r �• s� �� Id ,...r need t ► evelo r Potential parking/traffic conflicts � a ' 0-1 o CD Er UTILITIES IL IR $8 m i I I io, -t� mill , pp r. W R F MY a I t a DEVELOPMENT C� CSF. :I - SAL I PACT W Sutheas " MoyoiiMl DRI s OTHER CONSIDER TION r L Preserves the views "f he b, 4" -Enhances' he ra � rw ' I P n Looking North with AA Arena in Foreground a I i UNIME :N=A1MI10F±ll ra:194MEI Year 1 Year 2 Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure 18 Months Stadium Design Construction PARK WEST Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 -1 Cn pp - 12 Months $ 5.1 CLA pp - 30 Months 4� RIVERFRONT r c CT (�. 0o _. cit T CD 3 f cr RL � � PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Florida Marlins' Stadium - Too Large of a Footprint • r >rs• 1 1 f ' � r • �� +IMR�81lt � • °+. A R rIowa X �z w R � � � a _ . ►• *"Dun ,�„ r0. -ir► i ' "_ ..'-+-r. ,� � •gyp► , Ai r ,+ r u �-a PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Enron Field Footprint }}0.4if's 10 t Tl I T � F y � 4 +.c � t 4 _ 'l I� it d i Sr q r 00l,y �V: -` "0 4 41 - a ft, -. oft we tx -d r [ f s+ a --. as 1 _ilt_ . ' tmi► Comprised of approximately 19.81 acres Located in a commercial area adjacent to the -00 q0 : 2 individuals an "a'vwila /car e t ties own 2 parcels ai Power & Light ow other parcel � Requires relocation of FPL service center co CL m S � O :Y4 wow e Mum s Sa PERSPECTIVE (includes Metrorail Incorporated into Stadium Design) sw Ej -Nam Isis• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT Would contribute to the revitalization of the Miami River Close enough to be irlte rated. with CBD r AX89$40- xY u qp •_ w:8e r.:w .7u ,,:. -kn M v v a . h * _ Ufi'nlmavimp�&Wresidential nei hborhood g - Good potential for a riverfront pedestrian walkway: Cn c C Cr E� Aa C� `� j n ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental issues exist to be addressed re compan, i r ��;-mho repair 1% itity, industrial facilites wv i" 1 Ax 4 TUaIb111h ��sf� � did �� i i k0ierr � _CESS Off-streetarkin demand consistent with other { p g ® , C. downtown ballpark sites Amon the best saes in terms of parking supply 1-i g p g ppY IND a Two Metromover stations are Immediately adjacent m M to the site 0 ,�» x l Dion(est.) for relocation of utilities ruction of chiller plant Within Downtown OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Construction premiums to time and cost Cr a r t i JIN2NI M IIkiVA ImWa iell:I=0 Year 1 Year 2 Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure 21 Months Stadium Design CID Construction Year 3 Year 4 RIVER FRONT Year 5 �r 18 Months g cr a �. 0 _ O pp - a 33 Months -n o $ $ m-. Q RL 5 ci Florida Marlins $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M Data Est. Public Low -$13 M Low -$80 M Low -$80 M Low -$45 M Low -$50 M Low -$1 M Low -$1 M NA Land High -$15 M High -$85 M High -$85 M High -$50 M High -$55 M High -$2 M High -$2 M Est. Low -$7 M NA Low -$45 M Low -$45 M NA Low -$20 M Low -$35 M Low -$40 M Private, Non -City High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$50 M High -$25 M High -$40 M High -$45 M Land Est. Utility Low -$3 M $1 million Low -$8 M Low -$40 M $1 M Low -$2 M Low -$8 M $53 M Relocation High -$5 M High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$3 M High -$10 M Est. Site Low -$4 M Minimal Minimal Low -$4 M Low -$2 M Low -$4 M Low -$4 M Low -$11 Logistics & Demolition High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$3 M High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$18 M CIO Other Minimal Minimal Low -$5 M Low -$5 M Minimal Minimal Minimal Low -$10 a (Roads, slip fill, High -$10 M High -$10 M High -$20 CL etc.) 0 ,m=5 Schedule (months) 39 36 36 60 48 48 458 1.7b 0 CiF � �.Q ? 0 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS �CA Prepared for: i8 1 a a CITY OF MIAMI 5CL C) D March 12, 2001 n � c =1 Cr � ?n BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Tab Page I Introduction 4 Subject of the Study 4 Site Descriptions g Site Analysis Criterion g II Individual Site Analyses 12 III Comparative Site Analyses 45 Appendix A. Planning Considerations (Spillis Candela DMJM) r C B. Parking, Traffic and Utilities Analyses (DMJM Harris Engineering) Cr Q C Environmental Review (Evans Environmental & Geosciences) 0 0 I!� n -n 0 �- e� § ' � D. Estimate of a New Metrorail Station and Relocation of Metromover Er �� 1 Prepared for the City of Miami 2 t*� BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS About the Lead Consultants of the Project Consulting Team Legg Mason Real Estate Services and Stafford Sports: Based in Philadelphia, PA, Legg Mason Real Estate Services (LMRES) is a subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc., which manages over $93 billion of equity and fixed income assets for clients in the United States and Europe. As one of the largest commercial mortgage banking firms in the country, LMRES also provides real estate and sports consulting services. LMRES is a leading advisor nationally on the evaluation, feasibility and financing of major and minor league sports facilities, large commercial projects, mixed-use communities and golf course developments. Working with LMRES, Stafford Sports, LLC of Medford, NJ provides specialized financial structuring, transaction negotiation and managerial/operational advice and assistance to public and private entities engaged in the development, funding and operations of sports and entertainment facilities. Hammes Company: Based in Milwaukee, WI, Hammes Company serves the needs of governmental, quasi -governmental, professional and collegiate sports teams involved in the development and operation of sports and entertainment facilities. Since 1990, Hammes Company has served as owner's representative or project manager for sports facilities valued at over $2 billion — including Ford Field, Miller Park, Kohl Center, Lambeau Field redevelopment, First Union Arena at Casey Plaza, Firstar Center and several others. Spillis Candela DMJM: Based in Coral Gables, FL, Spillis Candela DMJM was established in 1926 and is one of the oldest and largest professional design firms in the southeastern United States. Spillis Candela DMJM has a workforce of 2,000 professionals with international capabilities. Their work has received numerous design awards. Submitted into tho public record in connection with Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared for the City of Miami 3 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Section I. Introduction On February 15, 2001, the City of Miami, FL commissioned Legg Mason Real Estate Services (LMRES) of Philadelphia, PA to determine the advantages and disadvantages of locating a new multi -use, state-of-the-art stadium at various proposed sites located throughout Miami, FL. To complement their analysis, Legg Mason Real Estate Services retained Stafford Sports of Medford, NJ and the Hammes Company of Milwaukee, WI to provide their sports advisory expertise to this site assessment effort. All three members of the project consulting team have been retained by numerous major professional sports franchises, private developers and public agencies. In addition, Spillis Candela DMJM of Coral Gables, FL provided the planning support and considerations related to the analysis of the proposed sites. In conducting this site review, the findings of LMRES and the project consulting team were also supported by the analysis related to the Development Regional Impact (conducted by Osterholt Consulting of Ft. Lauderdale, FL), the traffic, parking, access and engineering studies (performed by DMJM Harris of Miami Lakes, FL); and an environmental review (produced by Evans Environmental & Geosciences of Miami Lakes, FL). The results of those individual consultants, who prepared individual technical memoranda, can be found in the Appendix of this report. On December 17, 2000, Miami -Dade County and the Florida Marlins of Major League Baseball (MLB) executed a letter of intent outlining a public/private effort to build a new state-of-the-art baseball stadium. To fund the costs related to the construction of this facility, Miami -Dade County and the Florida Marlins developed a preliminary finance plan that consists of a combination of public funds (various tax revenue bonds and other proposed financing vehicles from Miami -Dade County and the State of Florida) as well as financial commitments made by the Florida Marlins. As part of the letter of intent, both parties agreed to locate the proposed ballpark within downtown Miami. The Florida Marlins propose a 40,000 -seat stadium with the following program elements: c 8Cr 60 luxury suites a S r� 5,000 premium seats, 4,000 bleacher seats and 31,000 general admission seats o C 1 1,500 -car parking garage retractable roof with natural turf and air conditioning m 3 c Prepared for the City of Miami 4 C a� —� Cr BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 1 — Subject of Study When analyzing the various sites, the project consulting team used the baseline data for the stadium (size, costs, etc.) provided by the Florida Marlins and their design and construction consultants. It is important to note that due to the water table, the field level is at grade as compared to many recently built ballparks where the lower seating bowl is constructed below grade. From an architectural standpoint, the effect is that the stadium will be 25 to 30 feet higher than most ballparks around the county. The preliminary building program, supplied by the Florida Marlins, in general is consistent with other state-of-the-art ballparks being t� developed for Major League Baseball. However, at this time, design has not yet advanced to a level of sufficient detail since this design work requires site-specific analysis which typically commences upon a final site selection. In reviewing the preliminary stadium program, it is the opinion of LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes Company that the Florida Marlins' proposed stadium Prepared for the City of Miami 5 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS meets the standards of a state-of-the-art facility, which the industry defines as those buildings encompassing the latest design elements; enhancing the experience of the attendees; maintaining flexibility to safeguard against functional obsolescence; and capturing appropriate revenue streams through premium seating, ample concession areas and other amenities. Related to the building program, it is also the opinion of the three lead consultants that the Florida Marlin's request for a 1,500 -car, on-site parking garage is reasonable. The value of premium seating packages, which is essential to the financial viability of new stadiums, will be significantly impacted if dedicated parking facilities are not within close proximity to the stadium. Furthermore, Major League Baseball requires that teams can only enter into stadium leases that provide dedicated adjacent secured parking for home and visiting players. Additionally, it is customary that convenient parking be made available to large sponsors, team staff and certain other individuals. Therefore, LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes Company can conclude that the Florida Marlins' preliminary stadium program is appropriate and, subject to final design, will be a state-of-the-art venue for the City of Miami. The City of Miami provided the consulting team the following eight sites for consideration (listed in alphabetical order): Arena West — bounded by N.W. 8th Street on the north, N.W. 6th Street on the south, the Metro Rail on the east and 3rd m C/) Avenue/Interstate-95 on the west. 2L a Bicentennial Park "A" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the existing deep water cut on the south, Biscayne Bay on the east and by Biscayne Boulevard on the west. ® 7, Bicentennial Park °B" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the American Airlines Arena on the south (with a portion of f deep water cut filled), Biscayne Bay on the east and Biscayne Boulevard on the west (relocated westward merged with N.E. m 2"d Avenue). na Bicentennial Park "C" — bounded by Interstate -395 on the north, the American Airlines Arena site on the south (with a portion CD B ar of deep water cut filled), Biscayne Boulevard on the east (relocated eastward into Bicentennial Park) and N.E. 2"d Avenue on � 5 0 the west. Orange Bowl — bounded by N.W. 7th Street on the north, N.W. 3rd Street on the south, N.W. 14th Avenue on the east and c N.W. 16th Avenue on the west. { Orange Bowl Expansion — bounded by N.W. 14"' Avenue on the west, N.W. 12TH Avenue on the east, mid -way between N.W. 3 and 4 1h Streets on the south and mid -way between N.W. 5TH and 6th Streets on the north. G1 Prepared for the City of Miami 6 0 C32 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Park West — bounded by N. E. 11"' Street on the north, N. E. 9th Street on the south, N.E. 2"d Avenue on the east and North Miami Avenue on the west (An alternate Park West site, which required moving the Metromover, was discarded due to the cost associated with the relocation, estimated to be $43 million, combined with the possible loss of Federal funding from disruption of service.) Riverfront — bounded S.W. 3'd Street on the north, the Miami River on the south, South Miami Avenue on the east and the Florida Power & Light substation on the west. I MW Figure 2 — Overview of Proposed Stadium Sites Prepared for the City of Miami 7 _ a mso0 g 01 CD (� 0CD 3 C Cr Figure 2 — Overview of Proposed Stadium Sites Prepared for the City of Miami 7 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS To be deemed successful in its setting, the proposed stadium needs to meet certain functional requirements such as pedestrian and vehicular access, serviceability and parking. As the evaluation of the sites were conducted by the project consulting team, it became apparent that each site presented unique opportunities and constraints. In addition, each site posed different impacts in function and integration with the surrounding communities. When analyzing the feasibility of the eight potential sites, the project consulting team focused on several key factors which included the following: Functional and programmatic issues related to the size and configuration of the stadium (adequate footprint) ca C Access to the site (vehicular, mass transit and pedestrian) 3 Impact on adjacent neighborhoods (traffic, parking, community integration, scale, etc.) 0 0 Timing related to land assemblage, movement of utilities, roadway improvements and environmental remediation' Q� Influence on creating other commercial and/or institutional opportunities n Qualifications for obtaining credits from existing Development Regional Impact (DRI) or development 3 Cr Costs (general order of magnitude costs associated with various sites) n From a functional standpoint, it can be concluded that a baseball stadium can be built on any of the eight proposed sites. However, the Riverfront site may have certain site constraints that will need to be addressed during the design phase. The Riverfront site cannot accommodate the stadium footprint, supplied by the Florida Marlins. Other new state-of-the-art stadium footprints, such as Enron Field in Houston, TX, may be able to achieve proper fit on this site. However, there will be compromises to the program provided by the penalties or premiums associated with construction on the site. After determining that each site could accommodate the footprint of a new stadium, the project consulting team assessed remaining issues related specifically to the individual sites. These assessments were more objective in nature and involved reviewing and interpreting data such as the supply of parking, calculated demand of new parking, flow of traffic, accessibility and qualifications in obtaining credits from existing Development Regional Impact (DRI) or credits from other existing demolition credits. Other quantitative analyses involved planning the physical site, determining the impact on utilities and roadways and calculating order of magnitude costs associated with the stadium construction, site preparation and site improvements. The budgets and schedules for all sites exclude costs and time associated with potential environmental remediation. Environmental cost can only be finalized following the completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). In order to compete a Phase II analysis on the privately owned sites, the owners would have to agree to report any environmental issues to the Miami -Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM). Due to this complex mater, it was determined that a Phase 11 would not be completed for all sites at this time. . Prepared for the City of Miami 8 Coors Field, Denver, CO Jacobs Field, Cleveland, OH BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS In addition to the quantitative analysis, LMRES, Stafford Sports, Hammes and Spillis Candela DMJM reviewed the sites based on their experience as it relates to the impact that the stadium would have on the surrounding community and the ability to generate additional economic development activity. In other cities around the country, commercial investment has resulted from locating sports facilities within designated "urban sports/entertainment districts." For example, the following two cities experienced substantial economic activity related to the construction of newly built sports facilities: When Coors Field opened in Denver, CO in 1995, reports indicated that $20 million was spent in new downtown business and over twenty-five restaurants opened. From 1995 to 1999, the value of land adjacent to Coors Field increased by over 14% with many converted old warehouses having loft units that are selling between $200,000 and $300,000 per unit. When Jacobs Field opened in 1994, Cleveland, OH experienced the opening of over twenty retail establishments and the renovations of over eighty-five storefronts. Since its opening, the Gateway Project, which includes the Jacobs Field and the Gund Arena, has created ov 6,250 permanent jobs and has generated $6.5 million in payroll taxes. g CrC as Prepared for the City of Miami 9 5-1 A. n 0 n� -7 n Prepared for the City of Miami 9 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Using a unique planning approach to real estate development, cities have clustered or strategically located entertainment attractions (such as sports facilities and cultural institutions) with traditional anchors (such as hotels and office complexes) to create a concentrated area of year-round activity. Figure 3 - Successful Components to Creating a Mixed -Use, Entertainment District Retail & Other Commercial Residential Prepared for the City of Miami 10 4, ca cr -5 06n 57 t n� 08 m 3g, 0 M Er r. ? n Retail & Other Commercial Residential Prepared for the City of Miami 10 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Urban Land Institute, an internationally recognized non-profit educational and research organization, made the following observations about this approach to real estate development: "Urban Entertainment Districts are seen by cities as a way to revitalize downtowns and attract business activities that have been lost to the suburbs during recent decades. Successful development of a retail/entertainment project begins with a strategic evaluation of the opportunities to position the project to compete as a destination." Planned entertainment districts, such as Baltimore's Inner Harbor, San Francisco's Yerba Buena Gardens and Cleveland's Gateway Project, have realized significant economic impacts from their investment in sports venues. The success in these cities has resulted largely by leveraging the investment in stadiums to anchor emerging sports and entertainment districts that become year-round local and regional destinations. The primary economic development impacts from properly planned and financed mixed-use, entertainment districts include urban revitalization, commercial activity, employment growth, enhanced tax base and urban housing initiatives as well as many other positive gains. While it is recognized that the City of Miami has not experienced measurable development resulting from locating the Miami Arena and the American Airlines Arena downtown, LMRES, Stafford Sports and Hammes firmly believe that the potential to create opportunities, similar to other urban entertainment districts around the country, exist within downtown Miami. As a result, the project consulting team believes that the ability to position downtown Miami in this context may be the most critical site selection criterion. CO Cr 3 C�- a o Prepared for the City of Miami 11 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Section 11. Individual Site Analysis After determining the criterion upon which to evaluate the individual eight sites, the project consulting team conducted a series of analyses that have been summarized in this section of the report. The sites appear in alphabetical order indicating no particular ranking or preference. When identifying land as "Public," reference is made to all public agencies (City, Community Redevelopment Agency, etc.). Prepared for the City of Miami 12 c Cr a 2. 0 -n B CD gQ 1 �a Prepared for the City of Miami 12 i BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Arena West Site Comprised of approximately 12.88 acres plus 2.78 acres when including the streets (15.66 acres in total), the Arena West site is located in a mixed-use area. The northwestern portion of the property has developed into the Poinciana Village residential community. The southeastern portion of the site is encumbered by a lease for the Travelways bus parking area. The balance of the property consists mostly of vacant land. Within this site, there are 147 parcels owned by 66 individuals and/or private entities. Three parcels, owned by CRA, have a deed restriction stating that these parcels must be used in a manner consistent with the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Project or the parcels revert to Miami -Dade County. Also, there is pending litigation on one or more of these parcels. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site would have a low cost for utility relocation (estimated at $3 million to $5 million). Access - Of all the sites, it is the closest to the Overtown Metrorail Station and consequently has the lowest off-street parking demand. The site is accessible from the Metrorail, Metromover and Interstate 95. Land Assemblage — Approximately 75% of the property is currently owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. Submitted into the public �� rd inco�`3ecii n with Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared for the City of Miami 14 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Arena West Site Disadvantages of the Site: Economic Development Impact — The distance from the existing entertainment clusters will limit spin-off development (bounded by the freeway to the west and a residential neighborhood to the north). Community Impact - Disruption to the neighborhood would be significant requiring the demolishing of a seven year-old residential development that has contributed to the rebuilding of the area (involves the potential relocation of up to 60 families). Lease — There is a long-term land lease with Poinciana Village encumbering 3.29 acres. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 15 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Issues This site's location is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current developments such as the Performing Arts Center and existing American Airlines Arena. It will not contribute to the synergy of that area, and the character of any ancillary development will not be of the same quality and potential magnitude. In addition, the issue of scale is a concern, given the residential context on the north boundary. Moreover, it will bifurcate Overtown. = Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 39 Z,Dmonths from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Arena West Site Cost Assumptions Project Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking C $30,000,000 Soft Costs 3 $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 Estimated Public LandNota ( appraised value) C) O $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised) n $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Utility Relocation 4 -n o CID $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 Demolition & Site Logistics m Q $412,000 to $423,000,000 Estimated Total�. 0 "� Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 16 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 5 - Proposed Bicentennial Park Site - "A" N" Prepared for the City of Miami 17 c g Cr 3.� --� C Z nv 03 �� Q CJt' BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 5 - Proposed Bicentennial Park Site - "A" N" Prepared for the City of Miami 17 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Comprised of approximately 19.42 acres of actual Bicentennial Park property, the site is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the bay on the east. This option does not require moving Biscayne Boulevard. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. _ • CO c CL on OR0 A« ,� 5'z 3 � Q. Prepared for the City of Miami 18 A o n3 Q BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although this site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to the Metromover, the site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Economic Development Impact — As currently designed, the site will channel spin- off development to areas across Biscayne Boulevard, but it will have limited positive development impact on areas farther west. Community Impact - This option significantly reduces the amount of available open park space along Biscayne Bay. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 19 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Downtown DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Considerations Views to the bay from Biscayne Boulevard will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be severely impacted. Similarly, views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be significantly impacted. Although pedestrian connections have to be developed, synergy with the existing arena and the proposed new Performing Arts Center will take effect. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 36 months from adopting a finance plan. lj 1 Cry BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "A" Cost Assumptions $340,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $385,000,000 Proiect Component Ballpark Parking Soft Costs Florida Marlins Subtotal $80,000,000 to $85,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) $1,000,000 Estimated Utility Relocation Costs $466,000,000 to $471,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 20 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 6 — Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" ,Prepared for the City of Miami 21 5CO A q fD 0 ' � � : n BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 6 — Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" ,Prepared for the City of Miami 21 Q- BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" Comprised of approximately 19.42 acres of the Bicentennial Park, 7.77 privately owned acres and 6.2 acres from the filled in slip (for a total of 33.39 acres), Option B is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the bay on the east. A majority of the site is owned by the City of Miami, and within the 7.77 acres, there are 14 parcels owned by 5 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. Also, this site preserves more open space due to the location of Biscayne Boulevard and the partial filling of the slip. Land Assemblage — A significant portion of the property is currently owned by the City of Miami which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. C C n c n C cD �. 8 7Z 0 Prepared for the City of Miami 22 E V' ca Submitted into the public record in connectio�vYith on INaW � City BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although this site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to the Metromover, the site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Utilities — Due to the relocation of Biscayne Boulevard, utilities would need to be relocated at an estimated cost of $7.2 million although it does not affect the 72" force main. Economic Development Impact — As currently designed, it has moderately reduced the amount of prime developable frontage on Biscayne Boulevard, and it will have limited positive development impact on areas farther west. Community Impact — Although filling in the slip will preserve open space and access to the bay, there are various regulatory issues (Department of Environmental Resource Management, etc.) which will impact on the site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 23 Development Regional Impact (DRI) Some or all of this site may be in one or both of the Downtown DRI and the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site selections, and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make the site unacceptable. Other Considerations A relocation of Biscayne Boulevard to the west is proposed. The existing city blocks between the current Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2"d Avenue and between N.E. 7th Street to 1-395 are used by the new boulevard alignment, and the area will no longer be available for development. Consequently, NE 12th Street, 11th Street, & 10th Street east of 2nd Avenue will be closed with some impact on the city grid. Views of the bay from Biscayne Boulevard will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be significantly impacted. �•�► Based on a review of all factors that impact I on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 36 months from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "B" IPA Cost Assumptions Proiect Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking fn $30,000.000 Soft Costs c $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal �. $80,000,000 to $85,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised date) n QL $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised value) $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 Utility Relocation $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 Other (Roads, Mass Transit, etc.) _n 0 r $523,000,000 to $540,000,000 Estimated Total 0 c_ Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if ar Ct Prepared for the City of Miami 24 OL 0 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 7 — Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Prepared for the City of Miami 26 A r Prepared for the City of Miami 26 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Comprised of approximately 11.29 acres of Bicentennial Park Site, 7.77 privately owned acres and 6.2 acres from the filled in slip (for a total of 25.26 acres), the site is bounded by a commercial area on the west and the relocated Biscayne Boulevard on the east. A portion of the site is owned by the City of Miami, and within the 7.77 privately owned acres, there are 14 parcels owned by 5 individuals/private entities. Advantages of the Site: Community Impact — With no immediate residential area, disruption to the residential neighborhood would be minimal. Economic Development Impact - By preserving Bicentennial Park for redevelopment and open space, this site would take advantage of the nearby anchors (American Airlines Arena and Performing Arts Center). Land Assemblage — A significant portion of the property is currently owned by the City of Miami which will reduce the time frame necessary for site acquisition. Parking - This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites, and it is convenient to the Metromover. Submitted Oto the public record in conneelpon with Walter Foeman City Cleric Prepared for the City of Miami 26 ' R Z o BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" Disadvantages of the Site: Access — The site has limited access. There will also be some impact on traffic since 25% of the trucks (or 644 trucks per day) use Biscayne Boulevard when entering or leaving the Port of Miami. Closure of N.E. 12th Street, 11th Street, 10th Street east of N.E. 2"d Avenue will impact on the city grid. The traditional character of Biscayne Boulevard will be altered significantly by a building placed axially along the sight lines of a northbound or southbound traffic. Utilities — Assuming the footprint of the stadium covers the former Biscayne Boulevard location, utilities, pump station and 72" force main would need to be relocated at an estimated cost of $45 million. Community Impact — There will be a loss of some park space. Economic Development Impact — As currently designed, it has significantly reduced the amount of prime developable frontage due to the scale of the stadium and its impact on views and access to the bay. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 27 Development Regional Impact (DRI) Some or all of this site may be in one or both of the Downtown DRI and the Southeast Overtown Park West DRI. Final site selections, and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient I to make the site unacceptable. Other Considerations The existing city block parcels between the current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2nd Avenue (from NE 91h Street to 1-395) are used for the new stadium and will no longer be available for development. The views within the surrounding areas will be slightly impacted. The views from the west side of the stadium to the bay will be significantly affected, but their value might be enhanced by the presence of the stadium. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, . construction, etc.), it is estimated that the E„i►: stadium could be completed within 60 months from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Bicentennial Park Site — "C" R000! Cost Assumptions Project Component to $340,000,000 Ballpark C'r $15,000,000 Parking $30,000.000 Soft Costs _ $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal ® 5 $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) 0 $45,000,000 to $50,000,00 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (toot appraised m $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 Utility Relocation W s Cr $9.000.000 to $18.000.000 Demolition, Site Logistics and Other $524,000,000 to $553,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any Prepared for the City of Miami 28 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Site Comprised of approximately 35.95 acres, the Orange Bowl Site is located in a mixed-use area. The property consists of the City -owned stadium and parking lots. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site does not require any significant utility relocation (estimated cost of $1 million). Land Assemblage — The property is currently owned by the City of Miami. t iY r I ca 0- 0 T1 O n� KCr Prepared for the City of Miami 30 Q i� t`_' BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although the capacity of the baseball stadium would be much smaller than the Orange Bowl, parking would be a challenge due to the extended schedule and no access to the Metromover or Metrorail. The site is indirectly accessible from Highway 836 and requires using residential streets to disperse game -day traffic. Community Impact — Disruption to the residential neighborhood would be more significant due to the increased number of events (over 70 per year). Economic Development Impact — This site would present extremely limited spin-off development. It does not draw pedestrian traffic from the Central Business District, and it will not benefit from the clustering effect created by multiple anchors. Utilities — The site is not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed on the site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Use Agreement — The Orange Bowl is encumbered by a use agreement with the University of Miami. There are an additional nine years remaining (plus renewal options) with no cancellation provision in the agreement. The University of Miami has indicated that they are not willing to consider a buy-out of this use agreement. In the event of eminent domain, the City would be required to determine the fair market value of the use agreement which would include compensation of all future lost revenue streams (such as advertising, premium seating sponsorships, etc.) Prepared for the City of Miami 31 Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is not in an existing DRI, and one will not be required. If the Orange Bowl is demolished, credits from the Orange Bowl can be transferred to the new ballpark. CD `1 mr . 1O n 3 t' c Cr -r 6 Other Issues There is debt, secured by the property, in the amount of $13.8 million that would need to be repaid. Based on the University of Miami's position related to their use agreement, there is no projected completion date for the stadium. f� f BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Site f �`' �� ' • + s4,' • ter• s,-. ;ti. *'. X..r .± • + �:..; Yom+= - 4. _ _ a ti fA IN �4 a a •i a S • 's •a� .w a+ Cost Assumptions Proiect Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking $30,000,000 Soft Costs $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal TBD University of Miami Use Agreement $50,000,000 to $55,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not an appraised value) $1,000,000 Utility Relocation $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 Demolition TBD Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 32 w BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Comprised of approximately 15.7 acres (excluding streets), the property is located in a mixed-use area that is predominantly residential in character. The area was developed as far back as the 1920's. Within this site, there are 94 parcels owned by 84 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Utilities - The site does not require any significant utility relocation (estimated cost of $2.4 million). Land Acquisition — This site is one of the least expensive sites to acquire. Parking — The site can share parking with the Orange Bowl site. Prepared for the City of Miami 34 r BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Parking would be a challenge due to the extended schedule. The site is indirectly accessible from Highway 836 and requires using residential streets to disperse game -day traffic. Utilities — The site is not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed on the site. Community Impact — Disruption to the residential neighborhood would be more significant due to the increased number of events (over 80 per year), and it would require relocating many home owners. Economic Development Impact — This site would present extremely limited spin-off development, and it does not draw pedestrian traffic from the Central Business District Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 35 Development Regional Impact This site is not in an existing DRI, and one will be required due to State law and administrative rules. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Based on a review of all factors that impact on timing (permitting, construction, etc.), it is estimated that the stadium could be completed within 48 months from adopting a finance plan. Other Issues The ballpark would be disruptive to the scale of the existing residential fabric of the neighborhood surrounding it. In addition, this site is too far from the downtown to be associated with urban revitalization efforts. cco n 0 33 t m cfa C-) r BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Orange Bowl Expansion Site Cost Assumptions Project Component $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking $30,000.000 Soft Costs $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised vale) $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 Utility Relocation $4.000.000 to $8,000.000 Demolition & Site Logistics $412,000,000 to $423,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 36 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 10 - Proposed Park West Site . Prepared for the City of Miami 37 c a ti �a ON .d o � � Cid" m c BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 10 - Proposed Park West Site . Prepared for the City of Miami 37 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site Comprised of approximately 13.33 acres plus 2.67 acres when including the streets (16.0 acres in total), the Park West site is located in a commercial area. The property has been developed with numerous warehouses, commercial facilities (many now vacant) and parking lots. Within this site, there are 56 parcels owned by 30 individuals and/or private entities. Advantages of the Site: Economic Development Impact — By preserving Bicentennial Park for redevelopment and open space, this site would take the greatest advantage of the nearby anchors (American Airlines Arena and Performing Arts Center). Through a clustering strategy, it will allow the City to create a mixed-use, entertainment district that would be larger in size with further westward penetration. Community Impact — There is no immediate residential area. Cn 3a o i 1 0 n, - n� Cr 3 Prepared for the City of Miami 38 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to two Metromover stations, the site has somewhat good access. However, there will also be some impact on traffic since 59% of the trucks (or 760 trucks per day) use N.E. 2"d Avenue when entering the Port of Miami. NE 10th Street between North Miami Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue and NE 1" Avenue between NE 9`h Street and NE 11th Street will be closed, with some impact to the city grid. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 39 c g a �.. C C CI 0. TJ c� ci BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites and is convenient to two Metromover stations, the site has somewhat good access. However, there will also be some impact on traffic since 59% of the trucks (or 760 trucks per day) use N.E. 2"d Avenue when entering the Port of Miami. NE 10th Street between North Miami Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue and NE 1" Avenue between NE 9`h Street and NE 11th Street will be closed, with some impact to the city grid. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Prepared for the City of Miami 39 Development Regional impact (DRI) This site is in the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to deem this site unacceptable. Other Issues The stadium is located within the existing I_ fabric of Downtown Miami without impacting Bicentennial Park. Pedestrian connections to the park and the Arena will have to be developed. This location preserves the views to the bay and enhances the value of development along the boulevard due to the activity of a new ballpark to the west. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. Based on a review of all factors that Q- impact on timing (permitting, I*" construction, etc.), it is estimated that the I stadium could be completed within 45 months from adopting a finance plan. I"-.0) BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Park West Site 4 _..— Cost Assumptions Project Comoonent $340,000,000 Ballpark c $15,000,000 Parking Cr $30,000,000 Soft Costs _ 1 $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal a $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Estimated Public Land (Not appraised value) $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 Estimated Private, Non -City Land (Not appraised vaaj ) $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 Estimated Utility Relocation 0 2 z $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 Estimated Demolition & Site Logistics JE.. $433,000,000 to $445,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 40 C+� BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 11 - Proposed Riverfront Site Prepared for the City of Miami 41 *05= o 0, Gi:s m a 08 g. CT BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Riverfront Site Comprised of approximately 19.81 acres, the Riverfront site is located on the northern side of the Miami River. The property is located in a commercial area adjacent to the Central Business District. Surrounding properties include office buildings, Florida Power & Light facilities, parking lots and commercial businesses. Within this site, there are two parcels owned by individuals/private entities and one parcel owned by Florida Power & Light. Advantages of the Site: Access — A new Metrorail Station with direct access to the stadium can be incorporated into the top of the parking structure (for approximately $37-$42 million). Two Metromover stations are immediately adjacent to the site. Community Impact — There is no immediate residential area. There is also good potential for a riverfront pedestrian walkway which will add to the amenities of the site. Parking — This site has off-street parking demand consistent with other downtown sites. The site is also among the best in terms of parking supply. This location avoids competing demand for existing parking required from concurrent events at the American Airlines Arena and the Performing Arts Center. Prepared for the City of Miami 42 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Proposed Riverfront Site Disadvantages of the Site: Access — Although this site is convenient to the Metromover, the site has extremely difficult pedestrian and vehicular access. Utilities — Including the acquisition and relocation of the Florida Power & Light service center and utility relocation, the site would have much higher costs (estimated at $53 million). The substation would remain adjacent to the site. The site is also not accessible to existing chilled water service, and it will require a chiller plant to be constructed. Construction Premium — There will be premiums to time and cost related to constructing the ballpark on a constrained site. Environmental - Based on the type of facilities that were on the site and adjoining properties, there may be environmental issues, and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would need to be completed prior to considering extent of potential environmental damage. Please refer to Figure 13 (found in Section III) for a comparison of sites related to potential environmental concerns. Development Regional Impact (DRI) This site is in the Downtown DRI. Final site decisions and the location of the ballpark and ancillary development will present a series of regulatory challenges based on the final location, but these challenges will not be sufficient to make this site unacceptable. Other Issues 1 � The impact of the ballpark at the River r� site could contribute to the revitalization of the Miami River and could encourage additional development in the Central Business District. However, this site is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current sports/cultural developments. The proposed footprint of the ballpark does not fit well in the site. Therefore, a design, different from the Florida Marlins' current plans, must be used. Other logistics would impact the construction site perimeters. Based on a review of all factors that c� impact on timing (permitting, h� construction, etc.), it is estimated that the $ 1 stadium could be completed within 48 months from adopting a finance plan. BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Ad Proposed Riverfront Site __ VA Prepared for the City of Miami 44 1` Cc C 1, Cost Assumptions Project Component rt $340,000,000 Ballpark $15,000,000 Parking $30.000.000 Soft Costs $385,000,000 Florida Marlins Subtotal $40,000,000 to $45,000,000 Estimated Non -City Land (Not appraised value) n n T $53,000,000 Estimated Utility Relocation eS c $21.000.000 to $38.000.000 Estimated Demolition, Site Logistics & Other r c, 499,000,000 to $521,000,000 Estimated Total Excludes environmental clean-up and legal fees, relocation expenses and business interruption, if any. Prepared for the City of Miami 44 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Section III. Comparative Analyses Having determined the advantages and disadvantages of each site, the project consulting team created a series of charts to summarize the more significant issues related to the stadium project. The budgets and schedules for all sites have not accounted for time or cost associated with potential environmental remediation. Figure 12 — Land Use Analysis Comparison Bicentennial Orange Bowl Orange Bowl Stadium Criteria Arena West Bicentennial Park "A" Park "B" & "C" Stadium (Complex) Park West Riverfront Site Prepared for the City of Miami 45 Current SD -16.2, C-1, PR Parks and Recreation C-1 (private) G/I Government- G/I Government- C-1 and C-2 O Office, SD -6 Zoning SD -16 PR (BC Park) Institutional Institutional, C-1, R-2, Central R-3 Commercial - Residential District, G/I Government - Institutional Current Land Restricted Recreation Restricted Major Public Major Public Facilities, Restricted Office, Restricted Use Commercial Commercial Facilities, Utilities and Commercial Commercial, Major Designation Utilities and Transportation, and General Public Facilities, Recreation Transportation Restricted Commercial Utilities and Commercial, Duplex Transportation Residential, Medium Density Residential c Cr CL o -n o' $Z 08 C Cr'T CD Prepared for the City of Miami 45 Comparative Criteria Allowed Uses under Existing Zoning: Land Use Change required Timeline for change (If applicable) Access BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS West Bicentennial Bicentennial Orange Bowl Orange Bowl Park West Riverfront Park "A" Park "B" & "C" Stadium Expansion um— Stadium — yes Retail — yes I — yes Rest'rant - yes rnnf - 2rk n/a etrorail, People Mover & etromover Biscayne Blvd. Interstate Stadium — yes Stadium — yes Stadium — no Retail — yes Retail — yes Retail — no Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - no No No Yes Stadium — yes Stadium — yes Retail — yes Retail — no Rest'rant - yes Rest'rant - no No Yes n/a n/a 4 months if under 10 n/a 4 months if under acres 9 months if 10 acres 9 over 10 acres months if over 10 acres People Mover Interstate 836 Interstate 836 People Mover Metro Rail, People & Biscayne & Biscayne Mover & Interstate Blvd. Blvd. 95 1-395 From a zoning or land use consideration, there will be minimal impact on the project schedule. However, each site will present unique challenges related to negotiation and acquisition. It has been assumed that a minimum of one year will be required to assemble any site not completely owned by the City of Miami. Submitted into the public r record irk connect.0 with Item - on ,a Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared for the City of Miami 46 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 13 — Environmental Considerations Evans Environmental & Geosciences has provided the following chart that ranks sites from the lowest likelihood of a potential environmental issue (Site No. 1) to the highest likelihood of a potential environmental issue (Sites No. 6 and 7). Prepared for the City of Miami 47 1 Orange Bowl 2 Orange Bow Expansion 3 Bicentennial Park "A" 4 Riverfront Cn g V 5 Arena West 3 �. CL 6 Park West 0 _..n 0 0 g Q 7 Bicentennial Park "B" and "C" Prepared for the City of Miami 47 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 14 - Parking Demand Analysis Arena West 10,469 Information is not available. Bicentennial Park "A" 12,638 19,000 Bicentennial Park "B" 12,638 19,000 Bicentennial Park "C" 12,638 19,000 Orange Bowl 13,362 Information is not available. Orange Bowl Expansion 13,362 Information is not available. Park West 12,638 20,000 Riverfront 12,638 20,000 From a parking supply and demand analysis, there appears to be adequate parking for all sites with the exception of the two Orange Bowl sites. CO) $ cr The following pages provide estimated project schedules for each site. Commencement of these schedules are dependent upon the 3 following: (1) the City of Miami making its final site selection and/or alternate(s); (2) the City of Miami conducting additional site- " 0 specific due diligence (Phase II environmental, etc.); (3) the City of Miami identifying and securing funding sources to assemble Ian 09 (if necessary); and (4) the development of a finance plan to fund the construction of the stadium that is consistent with the resolut-W9 � ' passed and adopted by the Miami City Commission on February 15, 2001. 0 cu n cr Prepared for the City of Miami 48 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 15 — Project Schedules ARENA WEST * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure 12 Months C G Cr C 3, Stadium Design �. :4 12 Months C1 n 0 � =y o Construction C7 rt 30 Months � Cr'T' Prepared for the City of Miami 49 M BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 16 — Project Schedule B -PARK "A„ * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 6 Months Infrastructure 9 Months Stadium Design 12 Months Construction 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 50 tl', WT C4 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 17 — Project Schedules B -PARK "B" Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd -15 Months Relocate Biscayne Blvd Fill Slip Stadium Design Stadium -12 Months Construction Stadium - 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 51 CO C a 1; O 09 � 02 'c �Cr E �7t w BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 18 - Project Schedules B -PARK «C,l * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure Utilities - 33 Months Design Biscayne Blvd - 24 Months Relocate Biscayne Fill Slip Stadium Design 12 Months Construction Stadium - 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 52 C C I a t',Z:) W BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 19 - Project Schedule ORANGE Bowl * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure ❑ ❑ ❑18 Mon Stadium Design 12 Months Construction 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 53 a g� 0 Cr t',Z:) W BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 19 - Project Schedule ORANGE Bowl * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure ❑ ❑ ❑18 Mon Stadium Design 12 Months Construction 30 Months Prepared for the City of Miami 53 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 20 - Project Schedule ORANGE EXPANSION * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months Infrastructure m Co 11111118 Mon 8` a� Stadium Design m 12 Months X 0 wConstruction c) 30 Months j Prepared for the City of Miami 54 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 21 — Project Schedule * Adopt Project Finance Plan Site Acquisition 12 Months $�coInfrastructure Y 18 Months d n_ Q Stadium Design � x 12 Months n� Z7 0� lac R6Construction � 13A 30 Months d 0-� PARK WEST Prepared for the City of Miami 55 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 22 - Project Schedule Construction Year 3 Year 4 33 Months RIVER FRONT Year 5 Prepared for the City of Miami 56 Year 1 Year 2 * Adopt Project Finance Pian Site Acquisition 12 Months CL Infrastructure n j21 C Months cp n a. •�+� gn C) -3 Stadium DesiCD c Cr o 18 Months � p Construction Year 3 Year 4 33 Months RIVER FRONT Year 5 Prepared for the City of Miami 56 Subff tted it1to the public io with record !n ec;�rte�,t� on ftm —""'`-Wetter Foeman erk City 11i i 11- '� V W BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Figure 23 — Construction Costs Summary Item Arena BC BC BC Orange iPark Riverfront West • Bowl Expansion Florida Marlins Data $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M $385 M Est. Public Low -$13 M Low -$80 M Low -$80 M Low -$45 M Low -$50 M Low -$1 M Low -$1 M NA Land High -$15 M High -$85 M High -$85 M High -$50 M High -$55 M High -$2 M High -$2 M Est. Private, Low -$7 M NA Low -$45 M Low -$45 M NA Low -$20 M Low -$35 M Low -$40 M Non -City Land High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$50 M High -$25 M High -$40 M High -$45 M Est. Utility Low -$3 M $1 million Low -$8 M Low -$40 M $1 M Low -$2 M Low -$8 M $53 M Relocation High -$5 M High -$10 M High -$50 M High -$3 M High -$10 M Est. Site Low -$4 M Minimal Minimal Low -$4 M Low -$2 M Low -$4 M Low -$4 M Low -$11 Logistics & Demolition High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$3 M High -$8 M High -$8 M High -$18 M Other Minimal Minimal Low -$5 M Low -$5 M Minimal Minimal Minimal Low -$10 M (Roads, slip fill, etc.) High -$10 M High -$10 M High -$20 M Schedule 39 36 36 60 48 48 45 48 (months) Total Low -$412 M -.. _. ... High -$423 M High -$471 M .0 Estimated land expenditures were provided by the City of Miami using assessed property values and applying a multiplier on the basis of comparable sales. Prepared for the City of Miami 57 BASEBALL STADIUM SITE ANALYSIS Limited Conditions and Underlying Assumptions In arriving at this analysis, except as otherwise noted, Legg Mason Real Estate Services, Inc. and other members of the project consulting team (cited in this report) have assumed the following: There are no hidden or undisclosed conditions of the lands or of the proposed improvements which would impair the utility or the feasibility of the use of the properties in accordance with this report. Furthermore, we have not conducted a comprehensive review of matters environmental in nature and assume the absence of any environmental hazardous or sensitive materials or deposits on the properties except as those sites mentioned specifically in the report. 2. The proposed properties will be in compliance with all applicable building, environmental, zoning and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes. The report is subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in our report: The conclusions stated in our memorandum apply only as of the date indicated and no representation is made as to the effect of subsequent events. 2. With the exception of the presentation to the City Commissioners on March 15, 2001, we are not required to give any additional testimony or to be in attendance in court or any governmental or other hearing with reference to the report without written contractual arrangements having been made relative to such additional employment. 3. Neither all or any part of the content of this report shall be disseminated through limitation prospectuses, private offering memoranda, and other offering material provided to prospective investors. This report does not include an appraisal of value of land and/or property, and preliminary costs estimates of land and/or property, indicated in this report, should not be construed as expressing any opinion of value whatsoever. 4. Information, estimates and opinions contained in this report, obtained from sources outside of our office, are assumed to be reliable and may not have been independently verified. 5. The analyses contained in this report incorporate numerous estimates and assumptions regarding market performance, general and local 1 business and economic conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters. However, some estimates or assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analyses are likely to vary from our estimates, and the variations may be material. Submitted into the public record in connection with on �. 3A 3-1-v Watter Foeman City Clerk Prepared for the City of Miami 58 APPENDIX - A PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Opportunities, Constraints, Impact on Neighborhood For the purpose of this analysis all sites have been evaluated utilizing the same model of the proposed facility as currently anticipated by the Marlins Team Management. In all cases, stadium diagrams have been depicted utilizing current information from various agencies with jurisdiction applicable. Overall, images shown on site plans, aerial views, eye level perspectives and sections have been developed mathematically as actual scale representation utilizing computer modeling. y Bicentennial Park A: $ Cr This site is defined: -9 ■ On the north — by 1-395 to and from Miami Beach • On the south — by the existing deep water cut 0 � m � • On the east — by Biscayne Bay is Cr =r ■ On the west — by the existing alignment of Biscayne Blvd. depicting the new wider expansion to the east as proposed and approved by the State of Florida Department of Transportation. The stadium will be located on the north east corner of the site. A portion of the existing Bicentennial Park will remain open space. Views to the bay from the blvd. will be significantly affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be significantly impacted. Development opportunities west of the blvd. may be enhanced by additional activities in the park. However, the quality of future I development may be affected. Land value would be reduced by lack of views and reduced by lack of views and increase traffic. Synergy with the existing arena and the proposed new Performing Arts Center will take effect, although pedestrian connections have to be developed. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-1 APPENDIX - A Bicentennial Park B: This site is defined: ■ On the north — by 1-395 ■ On the south — by the American Airlines Arena Site. Three fourths of the existing deep water cut will be filled. • On the east — by Biscayne Bay, (the two water indentation on the park's edge will be filled). ■ On the west — Biscayne Blvd. which is relocated westwardly, to coincide with N.E. 2"d Avenue. The stadium position is rotated as shown on plan. A portion of the existing Bicentennial Park will remain open space. Additional park land is created at the expense of the water fills and blvd. relocation. A relocation of Biscayne Blvd. to the west is proposed. The existing city blocks between current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2nd Avenue and between N.E. 7`h Street to 1-395 are used by the new blvd., and will no longer be available for development. Consequently, NE 12`h Street, 11`h Street, & 10`h Street east of 2nd Avenue will be closed with some significant impact on the city grid. The historic character of Biscayne Boulevard will be destroyed. Views of the bay from the blvd. will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will be impacted. However, the quality of future development may be affected. Land value would be reduced by lack of views and reduced by lack of views and increase traffic. Development opportunities most likely will be enhanced west of 2nd Avenue by the presence of a relocated Biscayne Blvd. Synergy with the existing arena and the proposed Performing Arts Center will take effect. Pedestrian connections have to be developed. @ c 18 Qra t 5 CL c� Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM cD � = ` A-2 APPENDIX - A Bicentennial Park C: This site is defined: ■ On the north — by 1-395 to and from Miami Beach ■ On the south — by the American Airlines Arena site and N.E. 9`h Street. A portion of the deep water cut will be filled. ■ On the east — by Biscayne Blvd. relocated eastwardly into the west boundary of Bicentennial Park. ■ On the west — by N.E. 2"d Avenue A relocation of Biscayne Boulevard alignment to the east is proposed. The existing city block parcels between the current Biscayne Blvd. and N.E. 2nd Avenue, from NE 91 h Street to 1-395 are used for the new stadium and will no longer be available for development. The traditional character of Biscayne Blvd. will be altered significantly by a building placed axially along the sight lines of a northbound or southbound traffic. NE 12'h Street, 11`h Street, 10`h Street east of NE 2nd Avenue will be closed with some impact on the city grid. The views within the surrounding areas will be significantly impacted. The views to the bay immediately west of the stadium will be affected. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will not be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. Views of the Performing Arts Center and views of the arena along Biscayne Blvd. will be impacted. Biscayne Blvd. and the western edge of the park will be raised approximately 6 feet to provide below grade parking. Raising of the ® boulevard not only would destroy the historical character but would adversely impact the pedestrian linkages of the city grid. Synergy with the existing arena and the Performing Arts Center will take effect, although pedestrian connections will have to be developed. 0Ubp,,it`i 0 iE tea ihq' PUbHC record in connectio wi h W keen on -5 Az Walter Foeman City Cleric Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-3 APPENDIX - A C Park West: The site is defined:CL s n _ o ■ On the north — by N.E. 11"' Street g� a ■ On the south — by N.E. 9th Street w ■ On the east — by N.E. 2"d Avenue 3 Cr ■ On the west — by North Miami Avenue The stadium is located within the existing fabric of Downtown Miami without impacting Bicentennial Park. Biscayne Blvd. is not impacted, and historical character is maintained. NE 10th Street between North Miami Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1st Avenue between NE 91h Street and NE 11th Street will be closed, with some impact to the city grid. Pedestrian connections to the park and the arena will have to be developed. This solution maintains the City's plan for 9th Street Mall from iscayne Bay to Overtown. This location preserves the views to the bay and enhances the value of development along the blvd. due to the activity of a new Ball Park to the west. A visual corridor from the Ball Park could be developed with the future office/commercial development in the Park West area west of Miami Avenue & south of 9th Street will be enhanced. Synergy with the existing arena and with the proposed Performing Arts Center will help bring a significant amount of people to the area on non -game days and would encourage the development of this area as an entertainment district. Views of the Performing Arts Center from the bay will not be impacted. Views of the bay from the Performing Arts Center will not be impacted. ® The Ball Park in this site could become a catalyst that would trigger development activity in the parcels located to the east, west and south of the site. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-4 APPENDIX - A Arena West: The site is defined: • On the north — by NW 8`h Street and it's adjacent residential community ■ On the south — by NW 6 1 Street, adjacent to the Government Center ■ On the east — by the Metro Rail • On the west — by 3`d Avenue The impact of the Ball Park could possibly help stimulate activity in the neighborhood. However, this site's location is not close enough to be integrated into the city's current sports/cultural developments such as the Performing Arts Center and existing American Airlines Arena. It will not contribute to the synergy of that area. The issue of scale is a concern, given the residential context on the north boundary. There is ample accessibility to and from the site with its proximity to 1-95 and Metro Rail. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-5 or C CL n M CD Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-5 APPENDIX - A Miami River: The site is defined: • On the north — by SW Td Street and the 1-95 overpass ■ On the south — by the Miami River ■ On the east — by North Miami Avenue ■ On the west — by Metro Rail and the FPL Substation The impact of the Ball Park at the river site could contribute to the revitalization of the Miami River and encourage spin-off development in the Central Business District. Extension of river walk is required of any development on the river. However, this site is not close enough to be integrated into the City's current sports/cultural developments such as the existing American Airlines Arena and the proposed Performing Arts Center. The proposed foot print of the Ball Park does not fit well in the site. An imposition over Metro Rail would need to be contemplated. Other logistics would impact the construction site perimeters. All edges to the site are very active. Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-6 a � s 5 t a. ?SID�� m C - Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A-6 APPENDIX - A Orange Bowl / Expansion: The site is defined: ■ On the north — by NW 7th Street and its adjacent residential community ■ On the south — by NW 3�d Street and its adjacent residential community ■ On the east — by NW 14th Avenue and its adjacent residential community ■ On the west — by NW 16th Avenue and its adjacent residential community Building the Ball Park on the site would necessitate the demolition of the Orange Bowl. The Ball Park would be disruptive to the scale of the existing residential fabric of the neighborhood surrounding it. Lack of sufficient parking in the surrounding area and the significant amount of traffic through the residential community would create a major impact. The site to the east of the Orange Bowl Stadium presents an added impact on the community, which would be displaced. This site is too far from the city downtown to be a part of the development activity on the vicinity of the American Airlines Arena and the Performing Arts Center. No significant development opportunity in the surrounding area of this site is anticipated as a result of the Ball Park. Q m t � ` n Ct 0 n Prepared by Spillis Candela DMJM A_7 Su ttt)'j iniG th01 public reC0rd in c$onnecijo "th iile�t �_ on Waiter Foeman City Clerk Transportation System Management Strategies Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium APPENDIX - B The purpose of this paper is to provide transportation management strategies in accommodating the anticipated trips to be generated by the new Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium. These strategies are largely based on the significant investments that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Miami -Dade County are making in the deployment of Intelligent Transportations Systems (ITS) within Southeast Florida. 1-95 Intelligent Corridor System FDOT is implementing an Intelligent Corridor System (ICS) along the 1-95 Corridor within Miami -Dade County. The ICS includes Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), CCTV Surveillance cameras, Video Incident Detection devices, fiber optic communications and a new control center. This system can help manage peak traffic flows to and from the new stadium by indicating which interchanges are congested and which interchanges have available capacity to accommodate stadium traffic. DMJM+Harris is completing construction engineering & inspection services on the first phase of this system. Advanced Traffic Management System Miami -Dade County is implementing an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) to replace the existing computerized signal system that was installed during the 1970s. This ATMS will provide more flexibility to monitor and control traffic along arterials and signalized intersections in providing synchronization and additional traffic capacity. The ATMS could also implement Bus Signal Priority and Reversible Lane configurations in addressing peak stadium traffic flow. DMJM+Harris is serving as subconsultant in providing traffic controller software and hardware for the ATMS. Advanced Traveler Information System = FDOT, in partnership with Miami -Dade County, the MPO, MDX and others, is implementing a new Advanced Traveler Information O,h. System (ATIS) to serve the Southeast Florida region. The ATIS is a public / private partnership with Smart Route Systems, Inc. in which DMJM+Harris is a subconsultant responsible for planning and designing the ITS infrastructure and support of day-to-day operations. The ATIS will provide real-time traveler information that is timely, useful and accurate so that travelers can make informed decisions regarding selection of alternative transportation modes, travel routes and trip times. The ATIS will use the Uf, internet, telephone voice recognition systems and other devices to disseminate real-time information. Perhaps this information can C, be displayed on the scoreboard at the end of the game, on DMSs at stadium interchanges or on traveler information kiosks throughout the stadium complex. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-1 APPENDIX - B Overlapping Event Times From a traffic standpoint, this pertains primarily to the Bicentennial A, B and C sites and the Park West site. These are all located in close proximity to the American Airlines Arena, the Performing Arts Center, Bayfront Park and Bayside Marketplace whose event schedules may overlap with the Marlins Stadium. From the standpoint of marketing sports and entertainment events in Miami, it applies to all sites. The major question is ..."Can Miami support sellout events in multiple sports and entertainment venues on the same day, or is the market self-limiting?" We do not have a firm schedule of events from the Performing Arts Center, but we have reviewed the current schedules of the five organizations that will be housed in the PAC (Concert Association of Florida, Florida Grand Opera, Florida Philharmonic Orchestra, Miami City Ballet and New World Symphony). Many of the PAC events may conflict with the Marlins and/or Heat schedules. The Bayfront Park and Bayside Marketplace venues hold numerous events during the year with varying times and durations. Clearly, the greatest potential for overlapping event times is between the Marlins and the Heat. Marlins Schedule The Marlins regular season runs from April through September during which they play 81 home games. The playoffs occur in October and consist of a best -of -five Division playoff, a best -of -seven Conference playoff and the best -of seven World Series. This translates to up to 11 additional games in October depending how far the Marlins advance in the playoffs. Marlins pre -season games are played elsewhere. d 0 Most of the Marlins weekday games begin at 7:05 p.m. and let out about 2'h to 3 hours later. d Heat Schedule The Heat regular season runs from October through April, with the NBA playoffs occurring in May. pwa Heat weekday games begin at 7:30 p.m. and let out about 2 hours later. II =� 9 C Prepared by DMJM Harris B-2 APPENDIX - B Overlapping Schedules There are several opportunities in the months of April, May and October when both the Marlins and the Heat will be playing on the same night at the same time. We have not done a market analysis to determine the extent to which Miami can support two major sports events on the same night. However, because of the influence of their respective playoffs, both of theses teams could expect sellout events during these overlapping months. A capacity crowd would be about 40,000 for the Marlins and about 20,000 for the Heat. Parking Demand and Supply The attached table entitled "Marlins Stadium — Transit and Parking Demand" calculates the off-site parking space requirements based on the number of patrons who arrive by automobile or by transit. This shows a demand for off-street parking of between 9,746 spaces for 25% transit arrivals and 13,362 spaces for zero transit arrivals. The Bicentennial Park A,B, and C sites and the Park West sites are served by the Metromover. The Metromover is not designed to carry large numbers of people swiftly, so we would not count on it for more than 5% of the departing patrons. The Arena West site is served by the Overtown Metrorail station. "' The Riverfront site is indirectly served by the Government Center Metrorail station which is several blocks away. Development of the U Stadium project has included discussions of a new Metrorail station to serve the Riverfront site. We understand the cost of this CZ project would be $25 million and would require about 4 years to design and construct. Neither of the Orange Bowl sites has any transit access although a future east -west extension of Metrorail is being planned and would include an Orange Bowl station. However, this is many years in the future. Submitt ,d in",o public record in connec on with Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared by DMJM Harris B-3 APPENDIX - B Therefore, it appears that the following are the demand for off-street parking spaces: • Bicentennial A,B and C: 12,638 (assumes Metromover only) • Park West: 12,638 (assumes Metromover only) • Arena West: 10,469 (Uses existing Overtown Mrail station) • Riverfront 12,638 (assuming no Mrail station) or 10,469 with Mrail • Orange Bowl 13,362 (assuming Mrail not available on opening day) • Orange Bowl Expansion 13,362 (assuming Mrail not available on opening day) The following table shows the number of parking spaces available. This shows that adequate spaces are available within a 15 minute walk of the Bicentennial, Park West and Riverfront sites. (Arena West and Orange Bowl were not estimated.) However, 15 minutes is a long walk considering inclement weather, elderly patrons, etc. This table also shows that all of the required off-street spaces are not available within a 5 minute walk. Walking Alternative Site (Number of Parking Spaces) Distance Bicen. Bicen. Bicen. Park Aren River Orang Orange a e A B C West West Front Bowl Bowl Exp. 15 Minute (3,000 19,00 19,00 19,00 20,00 N.A. 20,00 N.A. N.A. feet) 0 0 0 0 0 5 Minute (1,000 5,312 5,312 5,312 1,652 2,645 4,247 0 i 3,895 ,feet) I Notes: Number of Parking Spaces within 15 minute walk estimated by David Plummer & Assoc. Number of parking spaces within 5 minute walk furnished by Miami Parking Authority. the public record i ��n,3-ZZ 1- Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared by DMJM Harris 8-4 APPENDIX - B Submitted into 01"3 Public record in connaction with 1101 i on &1Zs /k, Walter Foeman City Clerk u -- Prepared by DMJM Harris B-5 Transit Assumptions A B C D E F 1 Number of Seats Occupied (1) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2 Patrons Not Requiring Parking or Transit (2) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3 Number of Patrons Requiring Parking and/or Transit 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600 4 Percent Assumed to Arrive by Transit 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 5 Number Arriving By Transit ( No Parking Required) 0 1,880 3,760 5,640 7,520 9,400 6 Number Arriving by Auto (Parking Required) 37,600 35,720 33,840 31,960 30,080 28,200 7 Average Auto Occupancy (3) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 8 Number of Patron Parking Spaces Required 14,462 13,738 13,015 12,292 11,569 10,846 9 Number of Additional Employee/Media Spaces Required (3) 400 400 400 400 400 400 10 Total Parking Spaces Required 14,862 14,138 13,415 12,692 11,969 11,246 11 On -Site Priority Spaces Provided (3) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 12 Off -Site Parking Spaces Required 13,362 12,638 11,915 11,192 10,469 9,746 Submitted into 01"3 Public record in connaction with 1101 i on &1Zs /k, Walter Foeman City Clerk u -- Prepared by DMJM Harris B-5 APPENDIX - B Truck Traffic on N.E. 1" Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue We have reviewed a report prepared by Beiswenger, Hoch & Assoc. that contains and origin -destination matrix if trucks entering and leaving the Port of Miami. This report finds the following: • On the average about 2,576 trucks enter and leave the Port daily on weekdays. Fridays are the heaviest with 3,162 trucks. • These trucks run all day between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. • About 59 percent of the trucks use N.E. 1St Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue to get to and from 1-395. • Another 25 percent use Biscayne Boulevard to and from 1-395. • Only 6 percent use N.E. 5th Street and N.E. 8th Street to get to 1-95. These findings affect primarily the Park West site which proposes to close N.E. 1St Avenue. One design option re-routes truck traffic around the stadium via other local streets. This provides an alternative travel path but is clearly a lower level of service since it introduces a series of closely -spaced right angle turns. This is very difficult for big trucks. These findings also affect the Bicentennial B and C alternatives which involve relocating Biscayne Boulevard south of 1-395. The trucks use N.E. 1St and 2"d Avenues because there is no ramp to go west on S.R. 836 from the 1-95/N.W. 8th Street entry. FDOT has plans to construct such a ramp, however, design and construction is likely to take five years. Maintenance of truck traffic on Biscayne Boulevard and on N.E. 1St and 2nd Avenues is an important concern during both utility Prepared by DMJM Harris - B -g Cn Crr Q rz a o n 4: l� Prepared by DMJM Harris - B -g Stadium Sites Access Analysis We have analyzed the traffic impacts of the stadium sites using the following assumptions: • Peak arrivals are between 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. for a starting time of 7:05 p.m. • Enough cars will arrive during this hour to occupy 13,000 parking spaces off-site and 1,500 premium spaces on-site. • The directional distribution is : • From west on 1-395: 25% = 3,250 cars • From east on S.R. 836: 5% = 650 cars • From north on 1-95: 55% = 7,150 cars • From south on 1-95: 15% = 1,950 cars • Peak departures are between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. Downtown Sites The 13,000 vehicles coming to the Stadium do not actually drive to the Stadium. They drive to their parking spaces. All of the Downtown -oriented sites (Bicentennial A, B, and C, Park West, Arena West and Riverfront) draw on the same pool of Downtown parking spaces. The only difference is in where the patrons go after they park their cars. Therefore, the traffic impacts of all of the Downtown -oriented sites will be essentially the same. The attached table shows that the Stadium in a Downtown location would impact 1-395 west of Biscayne Boulevard and 1-95 north of 1-395. Both of these links would operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic during both the entering hour and the departing hour. A major traffic concern of the Downtown sites is that, because the parking sites are dispersed throughout the Downtown area, there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic walking between parking lots and the Stadium at the same time that vehicular traffic is arriving and darting. g r t a. n by DMJM Harris B-7 APPENDIX - 6 Orange Bowl A similar analysis was done for the Orange Bowl using the same assumptions as above. The only additional assumption is that traffic from the north would be split 60 % from the northeast and 40 % from the northwest. All traffic would approach on S.R. 836, either from the east or from the west. The attached table shows that the Orange Bowl location would impact 1-95 both north and south of S.R. 836 and S.R. 836 both east and west of the Stadium site. These links would operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic. N.W. 17th Avenue and N.W. 12th Avenue would also operate at Level of Service F in the direction of Stadium traffic. The Miami Hurricanes play their home football games at the existing Orange Bowl. They generally play six to eight home games on weekends. For the Orange Bowl Expansion scenario, whenever a Marlins game and a Hurricanes game coincide, or even overlap time on the same day, there would be even greater traffic congestion than for a Marlins game alone. General Traffic Impact Conclusions • The Stadium is a large traffic generator. With a seating capacity of 40, 000 patrons, it is twice as large as the American Airlines Arena. • In this analysis the traffic demand was assumed to arrive in one hour (6:00 to 7:00 p.m.) on a weeknight and disperse two hours later. • The Downtown sites are located such that approximately 95% of the traffic arrives from the westerly direction. The Orange Bowl site is located such that approximately 60% arrives from the easterly direction and 40% from the west. • This analysis is based on a Stadium sellout (i.e., capacity crowd) • This analysis assumes that all Stadium traffic arrives via the freeway system. • In reality, some Stadium patrons may be in the downtown area during the day for work, school or other purposes and may remain parked to attend a Marlins game. This analysis does not account for this. • Only one of the sites (Arena West) has existing convenient Metrorail access beyond the downtown area. Five of the sites © (Bicentennial A, B and C, Park West and Riverfront ) have nearby Metromover access within the downtown area. Although some F -i people may use Metromover once they reach the Downtown area, they were assumed to drive to get into the Downtown area. ! No transit service was assumed for the Orange Bowl site. tl:� Subn-ittPd into thO public rocord in connection with on 3 i� � Waiter Foeman City CIO* J . Prepared by DMJM Harris B -g APPENDIX - B UTILITY RELOCATION TIME AND COST We have estimated the time and cost required to relocate utilities for the stadium sites. Time Required Utility relocation is a critical step in the stadium construction schedule. It is assumed that some Stadium construction may commence as long as existing utilities are maintained in service, but the majority of construction cannot commence until the new utilities are brought on line and the existing utilities taken out of service. Following is an estimate of the time required to get to the point where the new utilities will be on line and the old utility lines can be taken out of service and the stadium constructed on the selected site. This schedule assumes the following: • No lapse in service for any utility (i.e., every existing utility will remain in service until its replacement is brought on line.) • One of the tasks in the design phase will be to identify where the utilities will be relocated to. Presumably, this will be a nearby street or streets that will remain open after the stadium is built. • All utilities will be relocated to the same street at the same time. This means that the street will be opened only once. After all the utilities have been relocated the utility cut will be closed and the street surface restored. This suggests that one designer be responsible for all utility design and one contractor be responsible for all utility construction. • In the case of Bicentennial "B", the existing right-of-way of Biscayne Boulevard may be able to remain as a utility corridor through expanded Bicentennial Park. If this option is feasible, it may not be necessary to relocate the utilities that are in Biscayne Boulevard. The following are the activities necessary to conduct the utility relocation phase of the project: • Start-up — (i.e., getting a utility design firm under contract and started) • Design of multiple utility relocations i.� • Design coordination among multiple utility companies. This will be a time-consuming portion of the project because there are I such a large number of utility companies involved and because they will all have to agree individually before any construction can be done. • Permitting. Permitting is usually time-consuming. It is assumed that permitting can be fast -tracked and overlapped with the t design. GJ • Construction Submitted into the public record i/ conn: �ti �, th on Walter Foeman City Clerk Prepared by DMJM Harris -' - B -g APPENDIX - B The following table summarizes the required time to relocate utilities for the Stadium project to the point where Stadium construction may commence. These are very ambitious estimates and assume the City will do everything it can to expedite the process. Utility Activity Alternative Site (months) Bice n. A Bice n. B Bice n. C Park Wes t Aren a West Rive r Fron t Orang e Bowl Orange Bowl Exp. Start -Up 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Design 4 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 Coordination 2 6 6 6 1 6 6 4 6 Permitting 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Construction 8 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 Total Time months 20 32 32 30 30 30 22 28 Notes: If it is necessary to relocate the 72" force main in Biscayne Boulevard for Bicentennial Alternative C, this would require approximately 48 months for design and construction. If it is necessary to relocate the FPL Service Center for the Riverfront Site, this would require about 12 months to design and construct. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-10 c Cr �a � 3 C1 Prepared by DMJM Harris B-10 APPENDIX - B Cost of Utility Relocation The following are the estimated costs of utility relocation for each stadium site: Utility Alternative Site ($ million) Activity Bice Bice Bice Park Aren Rive Orang Orange C n. n. n. a r e A B C Wes West Fron Bowl Bowl t t Exp. Relocate Utilities $1.0 $7.2 $10. $6.8 $2.9 $1.0 $1.0 $2.4 4 Special Cases FPL Chiller Line $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 72" Force Main $0.0 $0.0 $35. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 Relocate FPL Service $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $52. $0.0 $0.0 Center 0 Total Cost ($ million) $1.0 $7.2 $45. $7.8 $2.9 $53. $1.0 $2.4 4 1 1 1 0 Notes: The cost to relocate the FPL chiller line was estimated at $1,000 per trench foot as supplied by FPL. The cost to relocate the 72" force main in Biscayne Boulevard is based on informal discussions with the Miami -Dade WASAD. The cost to relocate the FPL Service Center was estimated by FPL. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-1 1 C -� q) C. C n � r; -3 �Iv z Prepared by DMJM Harris B-1 1 APPENDIX - B Stadium Traffic Impact - Downtown Oriented Sites Prepared by DMJM Harris 8-12 Traffic Volume Level of Service 1-395 West of Project 1-395 East of Project 1-95 North of 1-395 1-95 South of Downtown 1-395 West of Project 1-395 East of Project 1-95 North of 1-395 1-95 South of Downtown Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 2,250 3,169 5,348 2,865 B C E C + Stadium Traffic 3,250 650 7,150 1,950 6 3 \ Cr � + Premium Traffic 375 75 825 225 Existing + Stadium 5,875 3,8941 13,3231 5,040 F D F E Departing Stadium 8:00-9:00 .m. Existing Traffic 1,9351 1,858 3,823 1,472 B B D B + Stadium Traffic 3,250 650 7,150 1,950 + Premium Traffic 375 751 825 225 Existing + Stadium 5,560 2,5831 11,7981 3,647 F C F D Prepared by DMJM Harris 8-12 Co g � a tv ro a A 0 6 3 \ Cr � sn Cst Prepared by DMJM Harris 8-12 APPENDIX - B Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic Traffic Volume Level of Service Biscayne Blvd. p Biscayne Blvd. + Stadium Traffic 3,900 Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 2,000 p + Stadium Traffic 3,900 + Premium Traffic 450 Existing + Stadium 6,3501 F Notes: Existing Traffic is one-way volume in same direction as traffic approaching the Stadium. Assumes basic number of through freeway lanes is three in each direction. C Cr r C C)c�m z ? ci' Prepared by DMJM Harris B-13 APPENDIX - B Stadium Traffic Impact - Orange Bowl Sites Prepared by DMJM Harris B-14 Traffic Volume Level of Service 1-95 North of SR 836 1-95 South of SR 836 SR 836 West of 1-95 SR 836 West of 17th Ave. 1-95 North of SR 836 1-95 South of SR 836 SR 836 West of 1-95 SR 836 West of 17th Ave. Entering Stadium 6:00-7:00 .m. Existing Traffic 5,348 4,119 3,922 4,471 E D D C/D + Stadium Traffic 7,150 1,950 9,750 3,250 4 Cr + Premium Traffic 825 225 1,125 375 Existing + Stadium 13,3231 6,294 14,797 8,096 F F F I F Departing Stadium 8:00-9:00 .m. Existing Traffic 3,8231 1,858 3,541 2,614 D B C/D B + Stadium Traffic 7,150 1,950 9,750 3,250 + Premium Traffic 825 2251 1,125 375 Existing + Stadium 11,798 4,0331 14,4161 6,2391 F C F F Prepared by DMJM Harris B-14 �c C CL CL m 0 z c� ) t 4 Cr iT CTS Prepared by DMJM Harris B-14 APPENDIX - B Entering Stadium (6:00-7:00 p.m.) Existing Traffic Traffic Volume Level of Service 17th Ave 12th Ave C C 17th Ave 12th Ave + Stadium Traffic 5,200 Entering Stadium (6:00-7:00 p.m.) Existing Traffic 738 356 C C � + Stadium Traffic 5,200 7,800 + Premium Traffic 600 900 CD n Existing + Stadium 6,5381 9,0561 F F Cr Notes: Existing Traffic is one-way volume in same direction as traffic approaching the Stadium. Assumes basic number of through freeway lanes is three in each direction. Prepared by DMJM Harris B-15 CO 1 � CD n Cr �n Prepared by DMJM Harris B-15 EEb-G Evans Environmental & Geosciences March 9, 2001 EE&G Project No. 0302002580 Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President Real Estate & Sports Consulting Services Legg Mason Mellon Bank Center, 12th Floor 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 Fax Sued 'n#o the recce i�connection Public Nft �on a is h Wafter F a Aman City Clerk Subject: Summary of Limited -Scope Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings for Potential Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium Sites, Located in the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Whitworth: Evans Environmental & Geosciences (EE&G) was retained by the City of Miami to conduct Limited - Scope Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) on properties in the City of Miami Brownfields Areas, which were selected as potential sites for a future Florida Marlins baseball stadium. The properties assessed included the following sites: • Bicentennial Park - Option A • Bicentennial Park - Options B & C (considered the same site for this assessment). • Arena West • Park West • Orange Bowl • Orange Bowl Expansion • Riverfront SCOPE OF WORK The Limited -Scope Phase I ESAs were intended to serve as preliminary site screenings to assess for potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs). The scope of work included the following. EE&G conducted a site reconnaissance of the subject and adjoining properties. Since site access was not provided, the site inspections were limited to drive-by visual inspection of the sites from accessible perimeters. EE&G assessed a historical overview of the subject and adjoining property usage by relying on available aerial photographs, city directories and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. -- Aerial photographs were reviewed at the Miami -Dade County Public Works Department, for the years 1963 through 1999 that include the Property Miami, FL Fort Lauderdale, FL Tampa, FL Jacksonville, FL (ario, FL ` Melbourne,FL Atlanta, GA " a Sub"" ift fhe reC019 in public Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President R1 ��r�nI N n it March 9, 2001 on Page 2 Walter Foeman -- Polk's Miami City Directories and Bresser's Miami Cross -Index Director Cleric were reviewed at the Miami -Dade County Public Library for the years 1929 through 1979, in approximately 10 -year intervals. -- Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were requested from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) for the subject properties. EE&G reviewed publically available databases maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), which pertain to the use and handling of hazardous waste, hazardous substances and underground storage tanks. The database research focused on the subject and adjoining properties. The databases reviewed included: -- EPA National Priorities List (NPL). -- EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). -- EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). -- EPA Resources Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). -- FDEP Hazardous Waste Sites List (HWS)/State Funded Action Sites (SFAS). -- FDEP Solid Waste Facilities List (SWF). FDEP Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Petroleum Contamination Overview Report (PCOR). -- FDEP Dry Cleaning Facility list (DRYCLN). -- Stationary Tank Inventory System List (STIS). -- DERM Underground Storage Tank (UT). -- DERM Industrial Waste Facilities - Category 5 (IW5). Based on the findings of the database research, historical research and site reconnaissance, EE&G reviewed environmental regulatory files made available by the Miami -Dade County DERM. Available files for the subject properties and adjoining sites of potential environmental concern were reviewed for information regarding reported discharges or other environmental conditions that mayaffectthe subject properties. 01-- X53 3"h"ttedrecint "be Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President rd 4n ccnr�pcUcri dFC March 9, 2001 on w1th Page 3aFfer i= Aman • Based on interpretation of the Limited-Scope Phase I ESA findings, EE&G pre W,%Ierh this report which included a ranking of the subject sites based on severity of potential environmental concerns, with respect to redevelopment of the properties into a baseball stadium. LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT The Limited -Scope Phase I ESAs were performed as modified (limited) versions of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidelines, Designation E-1527 (2000). The purpose of the Limited -Scope Phase I ESAs was to generally identify potential RECs, which are defined by the ASTM as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property". The limited assessments did not constitute complete Phase I ESAs, as defined by the ASTM Designation E 1527-00 standard, and should not be used or relied upon as such. Additional investigations, including complete site inspections, interviews with property owners and operators, building plan review, and a more in-depth research into historic uses, may be necessary to identify other potential RECs on the subject sites The findings characterized in this report only represent evidence that was reasonably available public information and site observations. EE&G did not have complete access to inspect the subject property; therefore, the "drive by" methodology was used to conduct site inspections. Assessment of adjoining properties also was limited to visual observations (outside the property boundaries) and review of available records. No direct measurements for the presence of impacts to the groundwater, surface water, soil, or air quality were made, except as noted otherwise. Non - scope ASTM E 1527-00 issues, such as asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, wetlands, etc., were not addressed in this Limited -Scope Phase I ESA. The Limited -Scope Phase I ESAs were performed by competent, qualified technical professionals, in accordance with sound professional practices and the standard due care exercised within the profession. The presence or absence of contaminants on the surface or in the subsurface of the subject properties cannot be determined without proper testing. Accordingly, the findings of this investigation merely assess potential for property owner liabilities arising from past and present usage of the subject properties and should not be construed as conclusive evidence that the properties have or have not been negatively impacted. The opinions and recommendations presented herein apply only to conditions existing at the time of the assessments. Any changes in site conditions, environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent hereto are not covered. Furthermore, although every reasonable effort has been made to use information sources that are authoritative, EE&G does not warrant their accuracy or completeness, nor the use of segregated portions of this report. This report was prepared solely for the use of the City of Miami and Legg Mason, and is not intended for use by unauthorized third party beneficiaries. City of Miami and unauthorized third parties shall indemnify and hold EE&G harmless against any liability or any loss arising out of reliance by unauthorized third parties on any work performed thereunder, or the rep0 bcVnts2 5 3 Mr. Thomas G. March 9, 2001 Page 4 Whitworth, Sr. Vice President LIMITED -SCOPE PHASE I ESA FINDINGS Submitted into the pt.iblic recOrd in c0l!!',Octian with on � Walter Foeman City Clerk The following is a general summary of the potential environmental concerns associated with the subject properties, based on interpretation of the Limited -Scope Phase I ESA findings. Pursuant to a request by the City of Miami, EE&G has ranked the subject sites based on severity of potential environmental concerns, with respect to redevelopment of the properties into a baseball stadium. However, as part of this assessment, no soil or groundwater samples were collected by EE&G to assess the presence or magnitude of potential contaminants on the subject properties. Therefore, this ranking should be used only for general planning purposes, and not relied on for assessment of remediation costs or time frames. Only through the preparation of a Phase II ESA can a more accurate evaluation of the environmental concerns be evaluated, and approximate remediation costs and time frames be established. The files maintained by the Miami -Dade County DERM had limited information on the subject and adjoining properties; therefore, EE&G relied on interpretation of historical land use to assess the severity of potential environmental concerns. Specifically, EE&G reviewed available city directories, aerial photographs and Sanborn Fre Insurance Maps to assess for the historic presence of service stations, auto repair facilities, car dealerships, laundry and dry cleaning facilities, and general commercial, industrial and manufacturing facilities in and around the subject properties. Based on EE&G's experience conducting Phase I and II ESAs throughout the City of Miami, and the research conducted for this assessment, these properties all have the potential for the presence of improperly abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs). The potential USTs may have been associated with the aforementioned facilities of environmental concern, along with hotels and apartment buildings, which were documented in heavy concentrations throughout most of the sites. Therefore, EE&G recommends that as part of future pre -development Phase II ESA activities, a geophysical survey be conducted, including electromagnetic (EM) and ground penetrating radar (GPR), to assess for improperly abandoned USTs, oil1water separators, septic tanks, soakage pits and other drainage structures. Additionally, EE&G has incorporated a recommendation for Phase Il ESA soil and groundwater sampling for each site, including the potential parameters to be assessed. The following is a summary of the Limited -Scope Phase I ESA findings for each site, ranked from lowest priority (Site No. 1) to highest priority (Sites No. 6 & 7), with respect to potential environmental concerns. Site No.1 - Orange Bowl The Orange Bowl property is located in a mixed-use residential/commercial area, bounded between N.W. 3`d Street and N.W. 7' Street, and between N.W. 10 Avenue and N.W. 1 r Avenue. The property consists of the Orange Bowl stadium, surrounded by parking lots, vacant fields and residential areas. A day care was observed near N.W. 61 Street and 1 r Avenue. The perimeter of the northern boundaries is a mostly developed with small commercial facilities. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 2, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the subject property were identified. � _"' 2�3 Mr. Thomas G. March 9, 2001 Page 5 Whitworth, Sr. Vice President Stebimtted into tl+e record in co,,, Public with on ai Wa%r PoeMan A service station occupied the northern boundary of the subject property (1600 N.W. 7' Street) from approximately the 1940s until the late 1960s. There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluid rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. A service station was noted in the 1929 and 1938 city directories at 645 N.W. 16t" Avenue (across from the above -referenced station). There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batt eries, discharged fluids that were rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. • A former laundry was noted in the city directories on the northern boundary of the subject property (1568 N.W. 7' Street) in the 1930s. This facility may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum-based solvents. • Several offsite service stations and auto repair facilities existed to the north and northwest of the Property, which may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents with the potential to impact the propert y's groundwater quality. • The Orange Bowl stadium has existed from as early as the 1930s. DERM maintains no records concern ing petroleum storage tanks or industrial wastes at this facility. However, there is the possibility that USTs were maintained at some time in the past to fuel a backup generator. • The commercial/industrial facility (former coffee roaster and currently electrical company), located on the northern portion of the subject property (625 N.W. 1e Avenue), may have maintained used petroleum hydrocarbons or solvents in their previous operations. DERM maintains no regulatory file for this facility. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the Property and adjoining properti es, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). • Phenols. • Pesticides and Herbicides. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for t01— 253 he presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oiUwater separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 Page 6 Site No. 2 - Orange Bowl Expansion 'Subm=tted into the public r@COrd in � on w�i th Waffer Foeman City Clerk The subject property is located in a mixed-use residential/commercial area, bounded between N.W. 3"d Street and N.W. 7"' Street, and between N.W. 120' Avenue and N.W. 17th Avenue. The western half of the property consists of the Orange Bowl stadium, surrounded by parking and vacant lots. The eastern half of the property is developed into residential dwellings. The perimeter of the eastern and northern boundaries is a mostly developed with small commercial facilities. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 3, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the Property were identified. A service station occupied the north -northwestern corner of the subject property (1600 N.W. 7"' Street) from approximately the 1940s until the late 1960s. There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluids that were rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. A service station was noted in the 1929 and 1938 city directories at 645 N.W. 16"' Avenue (across from the above -referenced other station). There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluids that were rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. A service station occupied the northeastern comer of the subject property (640 N.W. 12' Avenue) from approximately the 1940s until the late 1960s. There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly dosed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluids that were rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. Currently, this facility has been redeveloped into Henry Tire, which is in the process of being issued an IW -5 permit by DERM. A former dry cleaner and printer were noted in the city directories on the southeastern comer of the subject property from the 1920s through the 1950s. These facilities may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum-based and chlorinated solvents, acetone, and metal -rich inks. In the 1970s, the city directories indicate a possible auto repair facility in the same general area. A UST and possible AST currently are maintained on the northern portion of the subject property, along N.W. 13'h Avenue. DERM recently reported no elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater around the UST; however; these tanks will require proper closure if this area is redeveloped. �- 253 Subm t¢ed into the public c.or::f-ux�cn Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President record in withifs! March 9, 2001 �,,:.,'(�N �_'.�eman Page 7 • Several offsite service stations and auto repair facilities existed to the north, northwest and east of the subject property, which may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents with the potential to impact the subject property's groundwater quality. • The Orange Bowl stadium has existed from as early as the 1930s. DERM maintains no records concerning petroleum storage tanks or industrial wastes at this facility. However, there is the possibility that USTs were maintained at some time in the past to fuel a backup generator. • The commercial/industrial facility (former coffee roaster and currently electrical company), located on the north -northwestern portion of the subject property (625 N.W.160" Avenue), may have maintained used petroleum hydrocarbons or solvents in their previous operations. DERM maintains no regulatory file for this facility. • It is possible that some residential/apartment dwellings maintained USTs containing heating oil or diesel fuel. However, no record of ASTs or USTs in this area are maintained by DERM. • While non -scope ASTM issues were not addressed, it is notable that the residential and commercial structures built before 1980 may contain lead-based paints and asbestos -containing materials, that may increase the disposal costs during demolition of the eastern half of the property. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • P,Bs. • Phenols. • Pesticides and Herbicides. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the Property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oiVwater separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Site No. 3 - Bicentennial Park (Option "A") The Bicentennial Park (Option A) consist of the actual park property, located on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard between Northeast 9' and 12' Streets. The property is located in a commerciaVlight industrial area and is bounded on the east by the Biscayne Bay. Additional information concerning this property is provided in Attachment A. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the subject property were identified. 01- 253 Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 Page 8 The western portion of the subject property was occupied by gasoline stations from approximately 1939 through 1975. An oil tank was documented on the southeastern corner of the Property on the 1921 fire insurance map. Petroleum contamination was documented to exist on the northern adjoining property, which was occupied by Belcher Asphalt and Oil Company from approximately 1920 through 1964. Petroleum contamination was documented to extend southward, beneath Bicentennial Park, which likely originated from the former Belcher Oil facility. However, the southern extent of petroleum -affected soil and groundwater (beneath Bicentennial Park) has not been established. This site was deemed eligible for State -funded assistance under the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program in 1999. Former boat slips identified on the subject property were filled in the 1970s or 1980s. The source of this material likely originated from sediments dredged from the Biscayne Bay. However, no verification was documented indicating that the fill material met the Miami -Dade County Clean Soil Criteria. Additionally, the park was utilized as a race track in the 1990s, and the potential existed for minor petroleum discharges. The historic operations at the former boat slips may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents and heavy metals. Additionally, improperly abandoned USTs may be present near the former warehouse areas. Several service stations, dry cleaners and auto repair facilities were located across Biscayne Boulevard, due west of the Bicentennial Park property, which may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents with the potential to impact the subject property's groundwater quality. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • PCBs. • Pesticides and Herbicides. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oil/water separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Subfttted into the public re<Ord In cor,necilo,n with on 34LLu Walter Foemaa 01-- 253 City ClerIt Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 =Page 9 Site No. 4 - Riverfront Site Submitted 'n2 O thO Public record in connect -on Ib on Walter Fceman City Clerk The Riverfront property is located on the northern side of the Miami River, and is bounded to the east by South Miami Avenue, to the north by the 1-95 exit ramp (just north of S.W. 3`d Street), and to the west by the Metro -Rail. A northwestern spur of the property extends between South Miami Avenue and S.W. 2nd Avenue, and between the 1-95 exit ramp/S.W 2nd Street and S.W. 3rd Street. The property is located in a commercial and light industrial area. Surrounding properties were office buildings, Florida Power and Light (FP&L), parking lots, and commercial businesses. The properly consists of large tracts of vacant land and parking lots. The southwestern portion (owned by the FEC Railroad) is used to load and unload large ships on the Miami River. The northwestern spur of the property is developed with a parking lot, which is apparently owned by FP&L, and an office building. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 4, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following is a summary of the potential RECs associated with this property. • Former lumber yards that existed on the northern portion of the subject property, and northern adjoining property, may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons, creosote, heavy metals and pesticides. • The former FEC Railroad depot, located on the western portion of the larger parcel, may have stored petroleum hydrocarbons in ASTs or USTs, left creosote -sealed railroad ties in-place, and used arsenic -containing and/or chlorinated herbicides. • The former onsite taxi companies, tire company, auto repair facility, and auto rental facility may have maintained petroleum hydrocarbons in ASTs or USTs, used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluids that were rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. • The former industrial facilities, which occupied the Property around S.W.1 •` Court, may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents or heavy metals as part of their operations. • Former onsite specialized shops (i.e., blacksmith, carpenter, cobbler, etc.) may have performed operations which resulted in the discharge of heavy metals on the subject property. • Activities associated with the loading/unloading of marine vessels, and storage of materials may have resulted in discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides. • Offsite service stations and auto repair facilities may have discharged petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents, and consequently, may have impacted the subject property's groundwater quality. 01-- 253 Subrntffed into tine public Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President record in c0r;-)GcNon With March 9, 2001 l --�--__ on a Page 10 Walter Foeman • Former offsite newspaper publisher and printing company, located onthe noert mrn adjoining property, may have discharged metal -rich inks, petroleum hydrocarbons and acetone or other solvents as part of their operations. The western/southern adjoining FP&L facility maintained several large ASTs, reportedly containing oil and fuel. These ASTs were situated near the western boundary of the subject property's larger parcel. Therefore, the possibility exists that discharges associated with these ASTs and onsite operations may have resulted in petroleum hydrocarbons and PCB impacts to the subject property's soil and groundwater quality. Additionally, the onsite maintenance of vehicles may have resulted in the discharge of chlorinated solvents or heavy metals. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • PCBs • Phenols. • Pesticides and Herbicides. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oil/water separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Site No. 5 - Arena West The Arena West property is located in the a mixed-use residential/commercial area, bounded between the Metro -Rail (just west of N.W. 1 ' Avenue) and N.W. 3nd Avenue, and between N.W. e and 8"' Streets. The northwestern portion of the property is developed into the Poinciana Village residential community. The southeastern portion of the property is occupied by Travelways bus parking and maintenance area. The balance of the property appeared to consist mostly of vacant land. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 5, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the subject property were identified. The existing Travelways bus maintenance area likely generates waste oil and other automotive fluids, which have the potential to be discharged near storm drains and non -paved areas of the property. DERM could not provide a file concerning the regulatory status of the facility. A former service station occupied the northern adjoining property (801 N.W. 2"d Avenue) from approximately the 1920s; through the 1970s. There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used mineral 01- 253 Mr. Thomas G. March 9, 2001 Page 11 Whitworth, Sr. Vice President record in T-- Waller FoQ�man City Clerk spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluid rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. A service station was noted on the northern portion of the subject property in the 1929 city directories (156 N.W. a Street). There is no record at DERM which indicates whether the former USTs were properly closed. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, this facility may also have used solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluid rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. Based on the historic research, the subject property and northern/western adjoining properties were heavily concentrated with laundry and dry cleaning facilities from at least the 1920s through the 1970s. Furthermore, city directories indicated that several photo shops and printers also were located on the subject property. These facilities may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum-based and chlorinated solvents, acetone, and heavy metals. Due to the heavy concentration of hotels and apartment buildings historically located throughout the property, there is a concern that improperly abandoned USTs may be present. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase 11 ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • Pesticides and Herbicides. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survc-y (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oil/water separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Site No. 6 - Park West The Park West property is located in a commercial/light industrial area, bounded between North Miami Avenue and N.E. 2"d Avenue (and the Metro -Rail), and between N.E. a Street and interstate 1-395. The property is developed with numerous warehouses, commercial/industrial-type facilities (many now vacant), and parking lots. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 6, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the property were identified. This property historically contained the heaviest concentration of industrial -type business, as compared with the other sites assessed in this study. Several manufacturing and chemical companies were identified throughout the property, 01-- 253 Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 Page 12 Subs itt ,d sfif, ttr Pulhfic record in U Walter Foeman u : _ City Clerk based on the city directories and Sanborn maps. DERM did not have files concerning the regulatory status of these former facilities. However, there is the potential that petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and heavy metals may have been discharged as part of their operations. Furthermore, the former chemical companies may have stored several other compounds that would be regulated if discharged in the soil and groundwater. Numerous service stations, auto repair facilities and auto dealerships historically operated throughout the subject property and on the adjoining properties. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, these facilities may also have used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluid rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. -- DERM maintained files concerning at least two former onsite service stations (1001 and 1101 N.E.1 s Avenue), which documented the presence of petroleum -affected groundwater. Based on the historic research, the subject property and adjoining properties were historically occupied with laundry and dry cleaning facilities from at least the 1920s through at least the 1960s. Furthermore, city directories indicated that photo shops, paint manufacturers and printers also were located on the subject property. These facilities may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum-based and chlorinated solvents, acetone, and heavy metals. Due to the heavy concentration of hotels and apartment buildings historically located throughout the property, there is a concern that improperly abandoned USTs may be present. While non -scope ASTM issues were not addressed, it is notable that the existing commercial structures built before 1980 may contain lead-based paints and asbestos -containing materials, that may increase the disposal costs during demolition of the property. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the throughout the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • Pesticides and Herbicides. • Expanded analyses for priority pollutant scan in vicinity of former chemical facilities. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oftater separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. 01- 253. Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President Stabrnitted into the public cecord n ct�nn�,�ct n lith March 9, 2001 t Page 13 onWalter Foeman Site No. 7 - Bicentennial Park (Options "B" and "C") City Clerk The Bicentennial Park (Options "B" and "C") were considered the same property for the purposes of this assessment. It is the understanding of EE&G that redevelopment plans in this area included the re-routing of Biscayne Boulevard, with construction of the stadium to be constructed either east (Option "B") or west (Option "C") of the re-routed roadway. However, both plans appear to basically cover the same study area. The property is located in a commercial/light industrial area, bounded between N.E. 2nd Avenue (and the Metro -Rail) and approximately the western half of Bicentennial Park, and between N.E. 7"' Street and interstate 1-395. The property is developed with numerous commercial facilities (many now vacant), services stations and parking lots. The Howard Johnsons hotel is located on the northern portion of the property. The Site Layout Map is shown in Figure 7, which also illustrates the approximate location of the more significant current and historic facilities that may have contributed to the potential environmental impacts. Based on interpretation of the assessment findings, the following potential RECs in connection with the subject property were identified. This property historically contained the heaviest concentration of service stations and auto repair facilities, as compared with the other sites assessed in this study. Additionally, auto dealerships and car rental facilities historically operated throughout the subject property and on the adjoining properties. In addition to petroleum hydrocarbons and waste oil, these facilities may also have used mineral spirits and chlorinated solvents, washed vehicles, improperly disposed of lead -acid batteries, discharged fluid rich in heavy metals, or left behind improperly abandoned USTs. -- DERM maintained files concerning several current and former service stations (666, 700, 900 and 1000 Biscayne Boulevard, 951 N.E. 2"d Avenue, and 199 N.E. 12"' Street), which documented the presence or former presence of petroleum -affected groundwater. However, these sites have been either remediated to the satisfaction of DERM or have been determined to be eligible for State -funded assistance under the Petroleum Cleanup Program. Please note that, even with State -assistance, these petroleum -affected sites may pose a concern during planned development. -- There remain numerous former services stations and auto repairs facilities on the subject and adjoining properties, which are not documented in the DERM file, and therefore, are considered potential environmental concerns. Based on the historic research, the subject property and adjoining properties were historically occupied with laundry and dry cleaning facilities from the 1920s through at least 1960s. Furthermore, city directories indicated that photo shops and printers also were located on the subject and adjoining properties. These facilities may have resulted in the discharge of petroleum-based and chlorinated solvents, acetone, and heavy metals. 01— 253 If SubMItted into the Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President rltec rd �n ccr nePublctionwild March 9, 2001 -�„e ora Page 143) wahIr 'man • The Biscayne Chemical Company formerly occupied the northwestern portionCd�Qerk property, and a former uniform manufacturer and hospital occupied the central potions of the property. DERM did not have files concerning the regulatory status of these former facilities. However, there is the potential the petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and heavy metals may have been discharged as part of their operations. Furthermore, the former chemical company and hospital may have stored several other compounds that would be regulated if discharged in the soil and groundwater. Petroleum contamination was documented to exist on the northeastern adjoining property, which was occupied by Belcher Asphalt and Oil Company from approximately 1920 through 1964. Petroleum contamination was documented to extend southward beneath Bicentennial Park, which likely originated from the former Belcher Oil facility. However, the southern extent of petroleum -affected soil and groundwater (beneath Bicentennial Park) has not been established. A former exterminator was documented in the city directory (841 Biscayne Boulevard). There is a potential environmental concern if mixing and storage of pesticides occurred onsite. However, no information was available at DERM. Based on the site inspection, a large office building on the property, located near N.E. 9' Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue, may have an improperly abandoned UST remaining onsite. While non -scope ASTM issues were not addressed, it is notable that the existing commercial structures built before 1980 may contain lead-based paints and asbestos -containing materials, that may increase the disposal costs during demolition of the property. Based on the types of facilities that occupied the subject and adjoining properties, EE&G recommends conducting a Phase II ESA to assess for soil and groundwater quality impacts from the following potential contaminants: • Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. • Chlorinated solvents. • Heavy metals. • PCBs. • Pesticides and Herbicides. • Expanded analyses for priority pollutant scan in vicinity of former chemical facility. Additionally, EE&G recommends that a geophysical survey (EM and GPR) be conducted across the subject property to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs, oil/water separators, septic tanks, and drainage structures. Of- 253 Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 Page 15 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Submitted into the Public record in item�c®on � r With o Welter Foernan City Clerk EE&G is a full-service environmental, engineering, construction and consulting firm offering its clients a broad range of consulting, testing, and laboratory services. EE&G was founded in 1986 and has been offering environmental services for over 15 years. Its professional services include: • Brownfields Redevelopment Studies. • Environmental Site Assessments (Phases I and II). • Underground Storage Tank Management. • Environmental Remediation Services. • Environmental Engineering and Permitting. • Hazardous Waste Management. • Industrial Hygiene Services. • Asbestos, Radon, and Lead-based Paint Testing; Analysis, and Consulting. • Indoor Air Quality Investigation and Mitigation. • Environmental Training and Education. • Wetlands Management. • Construction Services. EE&G is headquartered in Miami, Florida, and has four branch offices located throughout the state of Florida. EE&G has established a team of approximately 50 full-time employees in fields such as geology, hydrogeology, engineering, construction management, toxicology, industrial hygiene, chemistry, and biology. All work is conducted by well-trained, educated, and licensed (where appropriate) personnel working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are performed by a team of experienced environmental specialists and reviewed by licensed professionals to assure accurate, high-quality results. EE&G has extensive experience in the environmental consulting industry and an approved contractor with many major lending institutions, local governments and fortune 500 companies. CONCLUSIONS EE&G completed this Limited -Scope Phase I ESA, at the request of the City of Miami, to assess potential environmental concerns associated with properties being considered for re -development into the Marlins baseball stadium. Based on the assessment findings, sites have been ranked from lowest priority (Site No. 1) to highest priority (Sites No. 6 & 7), with respect to potential environmental concerns as follows. 1. Orange Bowl 2. Orange Bowl Expansion 3. Bicentennial Park - Option A 4. Riverfront 5. Arena West 6. Park West 7. Bicentennial Park - Options B & C (considered the same site for this assessment) 01_x.. Mr. Thomas G. Whitworth, Sr. Vice President March 9, 2001 Page 16 The limited assessments did not constitute a complete Phase I ESA, as defined by the ASTM Designation E 1527-00 standard, and should not be used or relied upon as such. Additional investigation, including a complete site inspection, interviews with property owners and operators, building plan review, and a more in-depth research into historic uses, may be necessary to identify other potential RECs on the subject sites. These assessment findings were prepared only for general planning purposes, and should not be relied on to assess actual remediation costs or time frames. Only through the preparation of the Phase II ESA can a more accurate evaluation of remediation needs, costs and time frames be established. Based on the Limited -Phase I ESA findings, EE&G has recommended Phase If ESA activities, including a geophysical survey and soil/groundwater sampling, at each site. If you have any questions or comments with respect to this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Craig C. Clevenger, P.G. Assistant Director - Hazardous Substance Practice Susan M. Galante, P.E. Senior Technical Advisor EE&G CCC/SMG:ccc Attachment Subonitted pinto thl public recOrd in —_ on Wafter POeman ,.. City k 01. 253 FIGURES 01- �,�2 A 11 � � J�11 Is:A471 ! (�� Y I" i).... i..Y'�.r �,Y,�Ij �' y,'`i�..: .. WJi4etr� t�•�'ti?.. -� � i I'b 'WI:� 1111Lik'� � .�.. , ..... , }� ji- Ne >atr Js�� !•i ^�� r 1 I ! F1r3 ! r ' I • .: wGC 1+C%P .,, , 411.1 .Y:sr: v 1 I i '1- I40 �,r}..r i I # i elft rrts� t No Itr r ` 71 twtlr Rit. �� r �•`� T Pk # T tBicentennial Parkst ' S'#•� a �'� � Jllla• i4+lh ! "� i >t� -� � I � ,� r 1 C" Sites t Park West Site f iv. rare f 1 O} I. j �ik,yI r sc'� �■Lyi r!�. �� .,,,L 1' ,;+ �!' ti sl ,»I, 4' tk�jl• i L 'Slild,si ( 4 1 �' i ~.� VJ # i ,-r., _I �,f, + . �•� 7Par{"�j 3'a rf A* 1) ti ryJ_ ��/ j.� _ ^, V I ,F .rCtL1 s, ! t� �_ "! } 1 Irir.'. jLLi r¢ ?t ?i�I i .� ��I�' ^iM!'• r ta� 1 2i i Ilk W. t ! ' /� l •: d _ � � ) ' 741-Juii #' ' I� 1 i'3 t :L`h1io1 ; •:e� 4 �7 +` 'ti. 3 Arena West Site 1 ;itit' ,e. ... .. ,.Y•J. d .:.• �� ( � 1 '�`�7•�. \ nV Arlltl �t� J�.'J- "jr ,j� - 37 p1ij�1NQF_ 1 ....hf. S. ri+�'. ., ''�` ... - if �- Is •,wt 1 -1 t_ 1 iil:r it i1 -s J •_�, e•; '. _ f: ., .r t ,.'� DI1J { .- _ .�i;'.\•"`�.__ m fC.�urt'h�Ja+c•i•>�� vg_,',i �.. ^'- .. f _r 1V �. 1 Bicentennial Park 1 :-• 1r T1 t 'Yir I T # ! w %V: f'MrE64�t i I. _ �' . v h Fxlrr. rc•1•. .:5 L � , # Jv, rC.I C�1lIh:t]I' �� � �' Y •i ItAlt Site �r �':.. s Sir I •L•, i y nv+�i �sr t i y • �7 °. )�j ik ( I j^ j Y' r 1.4 ; i _.�.1 _.�.-� wc. . ■i �f��l .J t A ��rr� yam,,- � '` r 1 f, ti. ,��1 ,frf � S'"�'�• ' •• � � '� r .•tr!!Y � �...�- '• ` l.. ....... ,ra. .... �, � ..�. tr �11vf1 , c , , n';=t ••� , r t... t; Orange Bowl Sites s I mide..Mr�r�r►..prr �} jj Wit• t -) •1� `•{� j 1 alk s- d a i 1 �•. YL, --Re r!, �� 1,I� , 't. ' I SV a*1 1 r - ..; .. t 1'_ .r. •S ' ► �R:Q'_ C , 1 ►� rr F- • �. - a , - { I1��Rivertront Site,I•st_a'R'•, c s► 11!0'11) 8 SI�1j +' i t Y, t ji i ;(1 j j I _.. �'I� 'i -n • E_.r xr {,. r'�-Ir I { •I+1 �_ t.{ t �j j. f 3ee11tPlr'�i (:.l �� •5,—r,'~(� 0 _ ' I'P t a 1 �%`•` s 'SAa+: ., ,• �� #1 (r �•_ f . �O1/11ur�J f�� ,..,µ»� l..y !�' ! �. Q r,,r� g '~ 7y� Al 'Vr 1.�..t� ..sem _ 'ii•. � � •i - . 1 :.e L�'k-1 J. fir•«+. 7 `,.�.I `` _ ?1: f1 t,. -q! k 1 ;9 ,j: ♦ sa .f- �:, rlEf /�. - I Woo 01 Evans Environmental & y, Suit 400 POTENTIAL MARLINS BASEBALL EEG 4505 Commerce Way, suite 400 FIGURE Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 STADIUM SITES SITE LOCATION MAP � (305) 374-8300 CITY OF MIAMI ol (305) 374-9004 FAX SERVICE STATION FORMER LAUNDRY HUD -IM STATION) TOWER FORMER AUTO AZT (FORMER UST) FORMER STATS SER114C FORMERREPAIR HOSPITAL * ! o ILNMW+ FORMER FORMER • SERVICE CLEANER PFS STATION NV 7TH ST. Sub"tted InN*mnt® I? cOn�lec ®n with on _ with Waiter FOeman CitY Cleric DRY CLEANER (432 FLA.AGLER) LAUNDRY r� SERVICE REPAIR • 0SERVICE *-c1tER STATION SERVICE STATION) W 6TH ST. NV 6TH ST. FORMER a SERVICE Nv 4TH ST. FORMER > Y CLEANER FORMER AUTO REPAIRS FORMER P cad NV 3RD ST, 01— 253 EE'bG Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 commerce way, Suite 400 Wa r i Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-83M (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT - ORANGE BOWL AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS . Date: MARCH 07, 2001 Job No.: 0302002580 orm W. GS CC Seal. 1' =300' Cad File» GRAN—SITE Revisions: Figure No. p SERVICE STATION Is FSR DRY FI CLEANER PAINT Sud C """ IN Public in connection with on Walter Foeman RV 7TH ST. I --CITY ELECTRIC CO. POSSIBLE i AST CITY or Rwa i � STATDIN LAUNDRY L DIY sm CLEANER NTATION REPAIR i iaolvlcE (FORMER STATION SERVICE STATION) RW LTH ST. NV M ST. FORMER i SERVICE STATION W 4TH ST. FOMER DRY CLEANER AUUTTO3REPAIR i PRINTING MO W 3RD ST. Ui- 25; Evans Envir; m-nentn3 Geosc ences 145L5 Commerce Wal, c-Js*:b COO Mufti LGkes, RVu ?N'„ (305) 374-8-V (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: ❑RANGE BOWL EXPANSION MIAMI, FLORIDA SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Data LAUNDRY Job No. (FORMER HUD -4M FSR u, STATION) TOWER SERVICE FORMER AUTO AST (FORMER UST) STAiTA7V REPAIR FORMER STATCE ION FORMER HOSPITAL Sud C """ IN Public in connection with on Walter Foeman RV 7TH ST. I --CITY ELECTRIC CO. POSSIBLE i AST CITY or Rwa i � STATDIN LAUNDRY L DIY sm CLEANER NTATION REPAIR i iaolvlcE (FORMER STATION SERVICE STATION) RW LTH ST. NV M ST. FORMER i SERVICE STATION W 4TH ST. FOMER DRY CLEANER AUUTTO3REPAIR i PRINTING MO W 3RD ST. Ui- 25; Evans Envir; m-nentn3 Geosc ences 145L5 Commerce Wal, c-Js*:b COO Mufti LGkes, RVu ?N'„ (305) 374-8-V (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: ❑RANGE BOWL EXPANSION MIAMI, FLORIDA SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Data vA tv�; 07, 20010, Job No. 0302040258C Drawn By CS u, CWW Y RC nj J' RWslom Figure No. i SW 1ST ST, FORMER, SERVICE f STATION SW 2ND ST, FORMER AUTO REPAIR SW 3RD ST, FORMER SERVICE STATION SubpOtted into the public record in Connechn with item on ti 3%/< /,1 Walter Foeman City Clerk / FORMER FORMER AUTO SERVICE REPAIR STATION FORMER MACHINE SHOP FORMER SERVICE STATION FORMER MACHINE SHOP 0 FORMER RUG CLEANER H FORMER '~ PAPER CO. FORMER AUTO REPAIR FORMERFORMER SERVICE FPL ASTs STATION MAINTENANCE AREA FORMER OFORMER USED ASTs AUTO SALES FORMER LABORATORY DD FORMER FP & L ASTs z YARD W Q A cu FORMER > FORM H FORMER AUTO REPAIR is FORMER SERVICE STATION FORMER YARD FORMER TIRE CO, a Q 0 of Ofof a U LL W W LL F' o! ~ W = tv M O C9 U-L- FORMER MIAMI 10 HERALD I-95 EXIT RAMPS FORMER FORMER LUMBER TAXI CD. YARD 0 FORMER AUTO RENTALS _"�� a elk 14r N RZ�EF 14011 os -9 - FORMER AUTO REPAIR / FORMER CITY ICE L COLD STORAGE DRY C�LLEEANER w z w Q X: a x D 0 W FORMER SERVICE STATION Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Womi Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: RIVERFREINT AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SHEET TITLE: SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FORMER Ak Dw .Data MARCH 07, 2001 LAUNDRY FORMER CC SERVICE Cad Fera MRNER—SITE STATION Figure No. 1-4253 FORMER DRY CLEANERS* FORMER MIAMI 10 HERALD I-95 EXIT RAMPS FORMER FORMER LUMBER TAXI CD. YARD 0 FORMER AUTO RENTALS _"�� a elk 14r N RZ�EF 14011 os -9 - FORMER AUTO REPAIR / FORMER CITY ICE L COLD STORAGE DRY C�LLEEANER w z w Q X: a x D 0 W FORMER SERVICE STATION Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Womi Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: RIVERFREINT AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SHEET TITLE: SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Dw .Data MARCH 07, 2001 Job No.: 0302002550 Drawn By. GS CC Smile: 1 ° = 200' Cad Fera MRNER—SITE ReNs M Figure No. 1-4253 NEWSPAPER" � FORMER DRY CLEANER FORMER SUbfftltted into ji.1e public lnl connection with on i�/ice Waiter Foerrtan City Cleric FORMER CLEANERS FORMER SERVICE 16STATION FORMER /'/CLEANERS 4k FORMER SERVICE STATION FORMER PHOTO SHOP io FORMER CLEANERS *,r�FORMER DRY 71� CLEANER NW 7TH ST. FORMER CLEANERS FORMER *LAUNDRY TRAVELWAYS BUS MAINTENANCE SPARKING AREA NW 6TH ST. Ciea H 3 z NW 8TH ST. 01— 2S EEbG Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Mwmi Lakes, Rorido 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: ARENA WES AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS DW9. Date MARCH 07, 2001 Job No.: OM2002550 Drawn By. GS Am By. CC Scale: 1' = 200' Cad file: ARENA -SITE Revisions Figure No. FORMER AUTO REPAIR 0 NE 11TH STREET CLEANERS-,,.,,. FORMER FORMER CAR FORMER BISCAYNE RENTAL . OIL CO. FORMER SHEET METAL CO. FORMER FORMER FORMER AUTO SERVICE CHEMICAL REPAIR STATION CORP 6 TURF Al/CHEMICAL CO, FORMER 0 AUTO FORMER FORMER REPAIR *; TRUCK CO. PRINTER ALLEY WAY 1 FORMER FORMER PRINT SHOP SE CLEANERS FORMER SERVICE FORMER TRUCK STOP ISTATION L SERVICE STATION NE 10TH STREET 1 FORMER FORMER AUTO 'REPAIR PAINT MNF,,* , FORMER SHEET FORMER METAL WHOLESALE FABRICATOR PAINT CO. NE 9TH STREET W W z z W W Q x H Q r' Subrrfied into thoZ utlic z record In connecidon with --�� onL:24CL Walter Foeman City Clerk FORMER DRY ,rnc- FORMER DRY �1 CLEANER /1 FORMER SERVICE FORMER DEALERSHIP FORMER SERVICE STATION FORMER DEALERSHIP ,FORMER BICAYNE CHEMICAL CO. FORMER LAUNDRY IsFORMER SERVICE STATION EEbG Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 4M Miami Lakes, norwo 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: PARK WEST AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SHEET TM E: SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS . Date: FORMER DADE Job No.: 0302002580 CHEMICAL CO. i V 10FORMER DRY FORMER CLEANER 1' = 200' LAUNDRY PARKW—SriE Rei*ns: +FORMER FORMER BATTERY AUTO, SERVICE REPAIR FORMER FORMER WHOLESALE USED CAR OIL GO. aMLLN FORMER CLEANERS FORMER FORMER FORMER AUTO AUTO REPAIR REPAIR FORMER AUTO REPAIR FORMER INDUSTRIAL PARK SERVICE FORMER DEALERSHIP FORMER SERVICE STATION FORMER DEALERSHIP ,FORMER BICAYNE CHEMICAL CO. FORMER LAUNDRY IsFORMER SERVICE STATION EEbG Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 4M Miami Lakes, norwo 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT: PARK WEST AREA MIAMI, FLORIDA SHEET TM E: SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS . Date: MARCH 07, 2001 Job No.: 0302002580 Drawn By. GS Am Br. CC Sc*: 1' = 200' Cad Fier PARKW—SriE Rei*ns: Figure No. I FORMER FORMER SERVICE STATION U7 0s i BICENTENNIAL PARK FORMER FORMER USED FORMER SERVICE :FORMER TO TIRE CO. STATION LES ' FORMER AUTO REPAIR DRY SHEET METAL WORK L DEALERSHIP FORMER SERVICE STATION 01, 4 FORMER DRY CLEANER FORMER DEALERSHIP Vl 2 F— Li z FORMER Subft ted info th"m SERVICE Public STATION record irk connect.zl! on z Waiter FOeman RADIATOR SHOP FORMER BISCAYNE FORMER CHEMICAL LAAUUNDR' FORMER FORMER LAUNDRY USED CAR SALES FORMER GOODYEAR L FORMER FORMER ' SERVICE SERVICE STATION STATION FORMER AUTO RENTAL FORMER SERVICE FORMER STATION SERVICE STATION IN 10 POTENTIALIS 110'r FORMER SERVICE STATION SERVICE STA'{IQN FORMER EXTERMINATDR 10 fAL FORMER TIRE CO. L DEALERSHIP AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA FORMER SERVICE STATION JF w. FORMER UNIFORM AUTO CLEANERS SALE FORMER FORMER SERVICE FORMER STTAATION SERVICE 7A� STATION i mil I / AIL � FORMER CAR RENTAL FORMER TIRE CO. U7 0s i BICENTENNIAL PARK FORMER FORMER USED FORMER SERVICE :FORMER TO TIRE CO. STATION LES ' FORMER AUTO REPAIR DRY SHEET METAL WORK L DEALERSHIP FORMER SERVICE STATION 01, 4 FORMER DRY CLEANER FORMER DEALERSHIP Vl 2 F— Li z FORMER Subft ted info th"m SERVICE Public STATION record irk connect.zl! on z Waiter FOeman RADIATOR SHOP FORMER BISCAYNE FORMER CHEMICAL LAAUUNDR' FORMER FORMER LAUNDRY USED CAR SALES FORMER GOODYEAR L FORMER FORMER ' SERVICE SERVICE STATION STATION FORMER AUTO RENTAL FORMER SERVICE FORMER STATION SERVICE STATION IN 10 POTENTIALIS 110'r FORMER SERVICE STATION SERVICE STA'{IQN FORMER EXTERMINATDR 10 fAL FORMER TIRE CO. L DEALERSHIP AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA FORMER SERVICE STATION JF w. FORMER UNIFORM FORMER TIRE CO. CLEANERS N + FORMER L CAR FORMER USED CAR SALES RENTAL PRINTER i+ �AANNERS I i mil I / AIL � FORMER CLEANERS FORMER/ / PHOTO SERVICE FORMER TIRE CO. FORMER SERVICE STATION EV ARD BZg�A FORMER GOODRICH �- FORMER AUTO RENTAL FORMER FORMER PRINTERERVICE 0 STATION PRINTING FORMER LAUNDRY H F- Vl y 2 = H � � t0 w w z z FORMER CLEANERS EEbG Evans Environmental & Geosciences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Miceli Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 :FAX PROJECT.• ICENTENNIA PARK AREA (OPTION B & C) MIAMI, FLORIDA SHEET TT1LE: SITE MAP NOTING CURRENT & HISTORIC POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 0w9- Data LARCH 07, 2001 Job No. : 0302002580 Drw By GS CC Sc*: 1' = 200' Cod Fie 810EN-SITE Figure No. 01- 25 ATTACHMENT A ADDITIONAL BICENTENNIAL PARK INFORMA77ON o i W 2 �0 Evans Environmental & Geosciences - 99 SE 5th Street. 4th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131 EEb-G (305) 374-8300 (PHONE) (305) 374-9004 FAX BICENTENNIAL PARK BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 1963 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA D1 Project t: 0302001293 .10 EEb0 Evans Environmental & Geosciences - 99 SE 5th Street, 4th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131 G (305) 374-8300 (PHONE) (305) 374-9004 FAX BICENTENNIAL PARK BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 1999 AER/AL PHOTO FIGURE MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA D4 Project #: 0302001293 EEi G Evans Environmental & Geosciences - 99 SE 5th Street. 4w rloor, Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 374-8300 (PHONE) (305) 374-9004 FAX SubmiftVd innasp° j)iit3liC record in connection i h on i U Walter FOeman City Cierk a� BICENTENNIAL PARK BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 1950 SANBORN MAP FIGURE MIAMI, INAMI-RADE COUNTY, FLORIDA C5 Projects: 0302001283 EEi G Evans Environmental & Geosciences - 99 SE 5th Street, 4— Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 374-8300 (PHONE) (305) 374-9004 FAX a w OISCA`/ME 8AT Y tw DADE [O!/NrY-PCB6E /SLwNO PoRr a1r YL�,W ' rlwrs/B Fr[/GAT KO l o � 52 w t -A j— SA. z, t -A LLJ L- N. £.'3TN ST. y 6 ws N 52S ----- 504 - V • it, 0 N E Ww O a L C B/ C E N r E N N A L - f 0 zA 3A ,� t 29 /.:, - - �a l ; 1 _ f L / OIrC COBNTr - P N! SCA/SAY LI-- ivy ._...._... WMecion with an " Wafter Foeman iN city cfeetc 01- 253 EEbG Evans Environmental & Geosciences January 11, 2001 EE&G Project No. 0302001293 Mr. Robert Schwarzreich City of Miami - Planning Department 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33130 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 (305) 374-9004 Fax 8"bftttAAd into the nN in Conn ,� Public. on �.li with Weber Foemv arl City Cleric Subject: Budget Estimate to Address Potential Remediation Alternatives at the Bicentennial Park Property, Located on the East Side of Biscayne Boulevard, Between N.E. 9th Street and N.E. 12"' Street, in Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Schwarzreich: Evans Environmental & Geosciences (EE&G) has completed this "Budget Estimate" to address potential remediation scenarios at the above -referenced property (hereafter referred to as "the Property'). This budget estimate was based strictly upon the findings presented in EE&G's Phase Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated September 1999. No soil or groundwater samples were collected by EE&G to assess the presence or magnitude of potential contaminants on the Property. Therefore, this budget estimate should be used only for general planning purposes, and not relied on for assessment of actual remediation costs. Only through the preparation of a Phase 11 ESA (as recommended in EE&G's September 1999 Phase I ESA) can more accurate remediation alternative costs be established. For the purposes of this budget estimate, EE&G assumed that the Property would be designated as a Brownfields Site, and assessment/remediation/monitoring activities would be conducted in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) Brownfields Cleanup Criteria, per Chapter 62-785 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Assuming the site becomes a recognized Brownfields Program Site based on the assessment results, EE&G envisions two main scenarios which could lead to "closure" at this site. BACKGROUND EE&G conducted a Phase I ESA of the Property, in accordance with the ASTM Guidelines Designation E 1527-97. The findings were reported in the September 1999 Phase I ESA summary report, submitted to the City of Miami. That assessment revealed the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property. The western portion of the Property was occupied by gasoline stations from approximately 1939 through 1975, along Biscayne Boulevard. Additionally, an oil tank was documented on the southeastern comer of the Property on the 1921 fire insurance map. These RECs were interpreted to indicate a potential for release of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents and lead from the underground storage tanks (USTs) used forfueling, and petroleum hydrocarbon constituents, heavy metals and solvent from potential waste oil USTs. Additionally, there remains the potential that improperly abandoned USTs remain in the vicinity of the former filling stations. Miami, FL Fort Lauderdale, FL Tampa, FL Jacksonville, FL Orlando, FL Melboume,FL Atlanta. GA 01— 253 Mr. Robert Schwarzreich January 11, 2001 Page 2 "5om ted into tr Public ��� !n COINIEVIon puwith --L._ on Wa*r F01man ON Petroleum contamination was documented to exist on the northern adjoifyl% property, which was occupied by Belcher Asphalt and Oil Company from approximately 1920 through the mid-1960s. The presence of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents were also documented on the northern portion of the Property, which likely originated from the former Belcher Oil facility. Several filling stations were located across Biscayne Boulevard, due west (upgradient) of the Property. Additionally, petroleum contamination was documented at six facilities located within a 600 feet radius of the Property. Former boat slips identified on the Propertywere filled in the 1970s or 1980s- The source of this material likely originated from sediments dredged from the Biscayne Bay. However, no verification was documented indicating that the fill material met the Miami -Dade County Clean Soil Criteria. Additionally, the Propertywas utilized as a race track in the 1990s, and the potential existed for minor petroleum discharges. Based on the Phase I ESA findings, EE&G recommended that soil and groundwater samples be collected on the Propertyto assess for the presence of petroleum, solvent or heavy metal impacts, which may have originated from historic on-site and off-site usage. Discussion of the Former Belcher Asphalt and Oil Company Assessment Findings According to the DERM file review and an article in the Miami Herald dated August 13, 1999, the MacArthur Causeway Bridge approach construction activities were initiated in 1969 with completion in 1971. Bridge replacement activities were initiated in 1994, at which time the Department implemented construction of the approach to the pre -stressed, post -tension concrete bridge spanning Biscayne Bay. During the construction of the MacArthur Causeway Bridge approach, underground piping and soil saturated with petroleum product were identified. The origin of the underground piping was reported to have been from the former Belcher Asphalt and Oil Company located north of the Property. The piping was abandoned in-place and the associated contaminated soil and petroleum -affected groundwater encountered were removed, as needed to complete the construction activities. A total of 4,899 tons of petroleum -affected soil and 125,622 gallons of petroleum -affected groundwater were reportedly removed between October 1993 through June 1996. Several environmental assessment reports have been generated for that site on the adjacent northern boundary of the Property between 1990 and 1993, by PIECO, OHM, BB&L and Westinghouse Remediation Systems, Inc. Numerous soil and groundwater samples were collected, including areas within the northern boundary of the Prgperty. Soil samples collected from north of the Property contained concentrations of acetone, toluene, trichloroethene (TCE) and up to 27,100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPHs). One soil sample (SB -21) collected on the Propertyin 1992 contained 7,480 mg/Kg of TRPH, which exceeded the current Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) for both industrial -use direct exposure and leachability. A groundwater sample (W-7) collected on the Property in 1993 contained 31 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of TRPHs, which exceeded the current Groundwater Cleanup Target 01- 253 Mr. Robert Schwarzreich January 11, 2001 Page 3 Levels (GCTLs). Additionally, groundwater samples collected on the northern boundary of the Property contained dissolved heavy metals. Petroleum hydrocarbon odors were observed in soil samples collected on the Property. PROPOSED PHASE 11 ESA SCOPE OF SERVICES Prior to considering remediation for the Property, EE&G recommends a Phase II ESA be conducted to assess for the presence and extent of potential contaminants. Following completion of a detailed Phase II ESA, more accurate budget estimates for cleanup costs (if warranted) can be established. The Phase 11 ESA should including the following tasks: Geophysical survey of select portions of the Property, using electromagnectic (EM) survey equipment and ground penetrating radar (G PR). The objective of this survey would be to assess for the presence of improperly abandoned USTs and/or buried debris. Collection of soil and groundwater samples using the "direct -push" drilling/sampling technology (i.e., Geoprobe). The assessment should focus on the following portions of the Property. - Northern boundary of the Property, to determine the extent of soils and groundwater affected by discharges from the former Belcher Oil facility. - In and around the former filling stations, located on the western boundary of the Property. Additionally, these samples could be used to assess for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents migrating from the western service stations (located across Biscayne Boulevard). In the vicinity of the former oil tank on the southeast portion of the Property. The filled boat slip areas, and around the former race track. Estimated Phase 11 ESA Cost = $20,000 to $30,000 POTENTIAL REMEDIATION SCOPE OF SERVICES As previously noted in this correspondence, this budget estimate was based strictly upon the findings presented in EE&G's Phase I ESA, dated September 1999. No soil or groundwater samples were collected by EE&G to assess the presence or magnitude of potential contaminants on the Property. Therefore, this budget estimate should be used only for general planning purposes, and not relied on for assessment of actual remediation costs. Only through the preparation the Phase II ESA (as recommended in EE&G's September 1999 Phase I ESA) can more accurate remediation alternative costs be established. SubMitted into gjj, record in conne' "' pablic —�.._ on ctfon h utter Foeman c*/clef 01- 253 Mr. Robert Schwarzreich January 11, 2001 Page 4 Scenario No. 1 - Expanded Cleanup Budget §010tted Int® the public f@Wd in corrnn�c?icevith �.�..,.._ On `-�� Wer FOeman Cloy Clerk For the purposes of this budget estimate, EE&G has assumed the following: • The Property would be designated as a Brownfields Site. • Soils impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals are present on the northern portion of the Property, however, they do not extend southward (onto the Property) past approximately 30 feet of the northern property boundary. Therefore, an area of approximately 100 feet by 30 feet by 6 feet deep would require excavation and proper offsite disposal (equivalent of approximately 900 tons). • The two former on-site filling stations contained approximately six improperly abandoned USTs, requiring permitting and removal. The USTs would be closed concurrently. Additionally, approximately 400 tons of petroleum -affected soil would require excavation and proper, non -hazardous disposal from these facilities. • None of the affected soils would be characterized as "hazardous waste", and it is assumed that soils can be properly disposed at local incineration or landfill facilities. • No free-floating product (FFP) would be encountered during the assessment or excavation activities. • Approximately 1,600 tons of clean fill will be delivered to the Property and used to backfill the excavated areas. These areas will be compacted in 1 -foot lifts, and approximately 50 compaction test performed. No resurfacing is required. • Groundwater remediation would be limited in scope, and in the spirit of the Brownfields Program, a Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan would be acceptable for the Property. However, it is assumed that a short-term (approximately 6 -month) groundwater pump and treat event, and the addition of approximately 1,000 pounds of Oxygen Release Compounds (ORCs), would be required to address potential groundwdater impacts at one of the former filling station facilities. This budget estimate assumes that the groundwater impact from the former Belcher Oil facility is composed mostly of heavier, highly -weathered hydrocarbons, which may best be left in-place and allowed to naturally attenuate. A 5 -year Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan will be implemented, utilizing approximately ten monitoring wells. The sampling events will be conducted quarterly for the first year and semi-annually thereafter. A No Further Action Plan (possibly restricted) will be issued upon completion of the monitoring period. The material used to fill the former on-site boat slips met the current Miami -Dade County Clean Soil Criteria. No impacts were identified migrating from the western adjoining service stations. 40a 01. Mr. Robert Schwarzreich January 11, 2001 Page 5 Submitted into the record in connection vv& Walter Foeman City Clark No impacts were identified from the fueling/maintenance activities associated with the former race track activities. No chlorinated solvent -affected soils or groundwater will be identified, which will require active remediation. This budget estimate does not consider the effects of dewatering during future development activities. It is likely that the site will be closed with a deed restriction that limits such activities without properly addressing the affected groundwater (dewatering plan, proper disposal of affected groundwater, contaminant migration issues, etc...). Assuming that the Phase II ESA identifies soil and groundwater impacts as described within the boundaries of the aforementioned assumptions, the following costs may be incurred to address those impacts. • Soil Cleanup, ORC Application, and Management/Reporting ........ $180,000 • Closure of Improperly Abandoned USTs, with Closure Reports ....... $30,000 • Short -Term Groundwater Cleanup and Management/Reporting ..... $130,000 • 5 -Year Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan .................. $60,000 Total Potential Cleanup Budget Estimate = $400,000 Note: EE&G recommends adding a minimum 20% contingency fee to the budget estimate. Scenario No. 2 - FDEP-Reaulated Brownfields "Risk -Based" Closure w/ Deed Restriction The driving force for the costs and outcome of Scenario No. 2 will be the approval of a Risk Assessment by the FDEP, leading to No Further Action with Institutional Controls (i.e., deed restriction, storm water management, etc...). This scenario assumes limited removal of soils impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons or heavy metals, except in conjunction with site development activities (i.e., building piling caps, grading, stormwater system and utilities excavations). For this scenario, EE&G assumed construction of a structure on the middle and southern portions of the Property, and the use of the northern and western portions only for parking. Scenario No. 2 assumes the following modifications of the original assumptions (previously presented under Scenario No. 2 of this correspondence). All other assumptions would be the same. Soils impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals are present on the northern portion of the Property, however, they do not extend southward (onto the Property) past approximately 30 feet of the northern property boundary. To grade this area in preparation for a parking lot, only the top 2 feet of affected soils would require excavation and disposal. Therefore, approximately 250 tons would require excavation and proper offsite disposal. The rest would remain in-place under a deed restriction. 01- 253 %subftuea Into in conticic,go, Mr. Robert Schwarzreich_ on �o January 11, 2001 W Page 6 Wafter Foeman _ Cite° ��leri�c • Additionally, the volume of potentially-impacted soils at the two former on-site filling stations would also be limited to the upper 2-feet. Therefore, this scenario assumes only 100 tons of affected soil would require removal, while the rest remains in-place under a deed restriction. • Approximately 500 tons of clean fill will be delivered to the Property and used to backfill the excavated areas. Compaction would be completed using only the weight of excavation heavy equipment, with no verification compaction tests (assuming future compaction would be completed by the general contractor during property development). • No ORCs will be added to the excavation areas. • No active groundwater remediation would be required, as a Risk -Based Closure Assessment would be performed in accordance with the Brownfields Criteria. Instead, a 3 -year Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan would be acceptable for the Property, followed by a Restricted No Further Action Plan. Sampling events for the Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan would be conducted quarterly for the first year and semi-annually thereafter. Development of the Property would proceed in accordance with the terms and conditions of a deed restriction. Assuming that the Phase II ESA identified soil and groundwater impacts as described within the boundaries of the aforementioned assumptions under potential Scenario No. 2, the following costs may be incurred to address those impacts. • Soil Cleanup and Management/Reporting ....................... $89,600 • Closure of Improperly Abandoned USTs, with Closure Reports ....... $30,000 • Risk -Based Closure Assessment .............................. $30,000 • 3 -Year Natural Attenuation Monitoring Only Plan ................... $42,200 Total Potential Cleanup Budget Estimate = $191,800 Note: EE&G recommends adding a minimum 20% contingency fee to the budget estimate. CONCLUSIONS EE&G completed this `Budget Estimate", at the request of the City of Miami, to address potential remediation scenarios at the Bicentennial Park Property. This budget estimate was based strictly upon the findings presented in EE&G's Phase I ESA, dated September 1999. No soil or groundwater samples were collected by EE&G to assess the presence or magnitude of potential contaminants on the Property. Therefore, this budget estimate should be used only for general planning purposes, and not relied on for assessment of actual remediation costs. Only through the preparation of the Phase 11 ESA (as recommended in EE&G's September 1999 Phase I ESA), can more accurate remediation alternative costs be established. Q1+ 01A Mr. Robert Schwarzreich January 11, 2001 Page 7 While it appears that soil and groundwater impacts likely exist on the Property, EE&G has introduced numerous assumptions in order to provide an estimate of potential cleanup scenarios and associated costs. For the purposes of this budget estimate, EE&G assumed that the Property would be designated as a Brownfields Site, and assessment/remediation/monitoring activities would be conducted in accordance with the Brownfields Cleanup Criteria, per Chapter 62-785, FAC. EE&G reserves the right to revise budget estimate figures based on the introduction of updated assessment data, development plans, and/or modifications in regulatory agency enforcement criteria. If you have any questions or comments with respect to this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Craig C. Clevenger, P.G. Assistant Director - Hazardous Substance Practice Susan M. Galante, P.E. Senior Technical Advisor EE&G CCC/SMG:ccc record irtE�, ec. � in .1(`Public i - COnnecticn it, on Walter Fe an City Clerk MIAMI » DADE TRANSIT ENGINEERING j�COnnccr;c;vhi�c j With on FACSIN= COVER PAGE Wafter Fae; pan City Cleik To_ Gn`i.� Tg/osa s e COMPANY: ollp!C y!/ ADDRESS: PEEON1 NO_: C 'Z FAX NO -! o r 9 FROM: LEOPOLD VAN BERGEN MANAGER TRANSIT TECHNICAL SERVICES DATE: NUAMER OF PAGES O N'CLUDING. COVER PAG19): _ COA04 ENTS: ms's J OFFICE NUNMER: 305-375-4504 FAX NUNWER: 305-37514505 111 Nonh%vm Is[ Sbmr- 9th F1ooS Arai, Roil& 33I28-1999 01-. 253 i ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE FOR THE PROPOSED METROMOVER RELOCATION DUE TO MARLINS PARK AT DOWNTOWN PREPARED ON s IMRCB 7, 2001 DESCRIPTION COST Cr'V'iL Guideway -Double Track ( $33.26 million/mile x 036 mile) $11971878 Stations (one Center platform @ 2.97 million each) 52,969,216 Fare Collection Equipment ( S237,537 per station) $237,537 Utility Relocation $1,000,000 Sub -Total = $16,178,631 20% contingency $3,235,726 Sub -Total = $19,414,357 Escalation @ 3.596 to mid -point of construction (June 01 to June 05) $2,864,064 Sub-TOMI Civil Construction = $22„278,421 Environmental Engineering - IIS (27% of Civil Construction Cost) $445,568 Design (10% of Construction Cost) $2,227,842 A t -in -Public PIaces (1.5% of Station Design and CivilConsitucdon Cost) $61,747 Engineering Services burin- Construction (3.5% of Construction Cost) $779,745 Feld Supervision including MDTA staff (85% of Construction Cost) $1,893,666 $1,782,274 Metro -Dade County Contract Administration (8% of Construction Cost) TOTAL. CrM CONSTRUMON COST = - SYSTEMS $29,468,763 Admw Systems (Adorn., Eggr., ATC, Corn., DTS, PDS, Dyu- Ct[aph., Inst-, Test & Stan -u $4,578,531 Escalation @ 3S% to mid -point of Systems Installation (June 01 to Jan, 06) $859,328 ' Sub -Total = $5,437,858 20% contingency $1,087,572 Sub -Total Systems Cost = $6,525,430 _Metro -Dade County Contract Administration (2% of Installation Cost) Counry Support of Systems Installation and Testing (8% of installation Cost) $130,509 S522,034 TOTAL SYSTEMS COST= TOTAL PROJECT COST (Construction and Systems Installation) REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION & RELOCATION $36,646,736 _ ENVIRO-NhIENTAL REMEDIATION P-000,000 SAFETY CERTIFICATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS (1 % of Total Project $2,000,000 $366,467 PROGRAM RESERVE (5% of Total Project Cost) $2,050,660 TOTAL FSTIMATED COST FOR TFIE PROPOSED RELOCATIONS OF METROMO'V'ER SYSTEM = S43.063 8� Note: Cost estimate was prepared based on the followin- assumptions: 1. This is a conceptual cost estimate and should be taken as such- 2- All unit costs are in 200I dollars. 3. All costs; except Systems, are is 2001 dollars and these are escalated to the mid point of construe 4- Systems cosc is in 2003 dollars and it is escalated to 01/06_ d ed i.,i ,� . The relocation alignment of the Metromover was assumed along the exis[ina Biscayne Blvd_ reoft�� COnnectio ,t, C _; . 6. Cost for demolition of the existing Metromover-is not included in the cost c stimare. On 7- Does not consider revenue loss or cost of circulator bus service. n e�� NNWF°eman City Clerk MIAMI -DADS TRANSIT MARUN PARKS DOWNTOW_Y muMOMOVEt RELOCAT[ONl_cts, a3/o&WoI RIVERSIDE 'METRORAIL STATION Probable Capital Cost Projected March 1999 Construction Cost Consultant Design and Engineering Services, and Consultant Services During Construction (Allow 150%) $25.73 (2) $3.86 MDTA "Soft Costs` (Allow 21%) $5.40'(3) Projected March 1999 Total Capital Cost $35.00 (1) Construction cost esurnated by Gannett Fleming in the December 1988 report titled Riverside Center Transit FeaaiblRy Study, including contingency and construction reserve. Assumes that Federal fundling requirements apply, and that there has been no combining with development construction contracts. (2) Estimate based on the Engineering News Record Building Cost.lndex History (1916-1999). published March 22 / March 29,19-99, Volume 242, Number 12, where 1913 = 100, and December 1988 = 2617 and March 1999 = 3411. (3) Current MDTA "Soft Cost Factor~' includes inspection services, safety, tasting, and County administration_ record In coy°�e;virori4th on -,L-�L,/ PSSJ Wafter Foeman 05/01/1999 323 PM City Cleft( 01-- 253 Description $ Millions 1. Miscellaneous Unforeseen Modifications 0.11 2. Genera! Requirements & Insurance 0.84. 3. Mobilization 0.17 4. Site Work 0.59 5. Auger Grout Plies. 1.94 6. Elevator Drilled Shaft 0.03 7_ Concrete, CIP 2.79 S. Reinforcing Steel 1.63 9_ Precast/ Prestressed Concrete 0.78 10. Finishes 0.16 11, Ancillary Assemblies 0.12 12. Specialties 1.87 13. Elevators / Escalators - 1.74 14. Trackwork / Modfications_ 044 15. Mechanical 0.69 16. -Electrical 0.62 17. Train Control 2.63 18. Fare Collection 0.39 19. Station Graphics/ Fumiture 0.3 20. Artwork 0.21 21.- Program Contingency (Allow 10% on Items 4-20) 1.59 December 1988 Construction Sub Total $19.74 a) Projected March 1999 Construction Cost Consultant Design and Engineering Services, and Consultant Services During Construction (Allow 150%) $25.73 (2) $3.86 MDTA "Soft Costs` (Allow 21%) $5.40'(3) Projected March 1999 Total Capital Cost $35.00 (1) Construction cost esurnated by Gannett Fleming in the December 1988 report titled Riverside Center Transit FeaaiblRy Study, including contingency and construction reserve. Assumes that Federal fundling requirements apply, and that there has been no combining with development construction contracts. (2) Estimate based on the Engineering News Record Building Cost.lndex History (1916-1999). published March 22 / March 29,19-99, Volume 242, Number 12, where 1913 = 100, and December 1988 = 2617 and March 1999 = 3411. (3) Current MDTA "Soft Cost Factor~' includes inspection services, safety, tasting, and County administration_ record In coy°�e;virori4th on -,L-�L,/ PSSJ Wafter Foeman 05/01/1999 323 PM City Cleft( 01-- 253 J-01-238 3/15/01 RESOLUTION NO. -7, vt A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RIVERFRONT SITE IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE SITE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE OF THE ART BASEBALL STADIUM FOR THE MARLINS; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) OF THE SITE FOR ACQUISITION OF THE REQUIRED LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AND TO PRESENT THE AGREEMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Riverfront site in Miami, Florida, is approved as the most appropriate site for the construction of a state of the art baseball stadium for the Marlins. Section 2. The City Manager is directed!/ to negotiate with the property owner(s) of the site for acquisition of the required land at fair market value and to present the :1 The herein direction is further subject to compliance with all requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney, including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter and Code provisions. CITY COIXISSION MEETING OF MAR 1 5 2001 agreement (s) , in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to the City Commission as soon as possible for consideration. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor Y PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March , 2001. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the May id not Indicate approval of len slation by signing it in the designated place rovided, s w::come effective with the elapse of (10 ays fr a dat f Cc :;.' regarding same, without the Mayor erci g v ATTEST: Waite J. Foe C erk WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK APPROJ�J($i' TO SRM AND CORRECTNESS :t-1 TY ATTORNEY W5159:BSS z/ If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. Page 2 of 2 -- � ;*,J, 3 04y iv� Mme: 0104"Itl"� Rek"10fo-44 AgA%el CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN PARK WEST (SEO/PW) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) MARLINS BALLPARK STUDY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SITES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA Subfnitted into the public record in connection wi h nARI Z on 3 / U / Walter Foeman City Clerk oi — 2"53 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way • Suite 430 9 Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone (305) 579-3324 • Fax (305) 372-4646 I II Executive Summary Exhibit "A" - III. Exhibit "B" - IV. Exhibit "C" - V. Exhibit "D" - VI. Exhibit "E" VII. Exhibit "F" - TABLE OF CONTENTS Site maps Summary of recommendation for each site Financial Report — Dain Rauscher DRI Analysis — Bercow & Redell, P.A. Alternative Stadium Location Options — Bermello Ajamil & Partners Inc. Engineering Report — Civil — CADD Engineering Subrmtted iM,,c `,`U.pudic record in ccnnectlun with item _L____ on Walter Foeman City Clerk 01. 2 Illi -3 - Submitted into the public record in connection with I n _ L ___ ora 3Zl:�Irc1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT O W81ter Foeman IMPACT OF BASEBALL STADIUM PROPOSALS ON City Cleric 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 8� 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 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. Submitted into the public rec ofd i conne3 n with item on Wafter Foeman City Clerk 01-- K s sq •g J .s�_ �r•i1�_W .1 iss ~ ".'�!LA'� :s`� � " �. { - '� .-��-r •p `.. � }J.��s—^ - :ell �' • � ' N � _ae r.y � ' ' I--weR+�,.-aMav"/r•.. ^t r -.. ._ � s•: _�.. ,d-.: - pal *,,... � .^._...._. 1 •°i i11191! i .. .� .. .�' �` Wit, } ► / -� �'"^ ���1 t-� I - 6► Nk ep y nµ 1 1 �r.t �✓ �r Ak.. 5 z ` • 5 DI, WI ro n 0 b 0 En w to N Proposal C iEM P110TW0 APH 1 •vim• �— : �� -■ �n��n�� �iuimumiun ■ � � Cu USC ���I � = " E ; , _ - I , �I _ _ \ 11111111 �Iil� 111111 111111111 ME - � ��11111111 1111111111 111111111 11� Ilii) — ' Inllll 11 illllnll I1.. . 11111 _ `; �T�:ji�.�.ii►�l 111111111 Illllnn IIS �_ - i 11111U1 Ulilllll 11� __ = � I UUIIII IIIIIIIII 11. 1111= �■����� �• • 1 11— 1■IIIII Iv . 4-' .. i a f 9 Imo' _ • IIID ■ _111111111 11111111 I II IIIUI 1111 � � C�3 merican Airlines Arena � S Railroad Tracks MIAMI ARENA SITE POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES .I ?f" T .. I '$. �i��•>) !' i. n{��� .csfX;3� j. _ F � �. •ir' _ 1 ETA, w �h' .�, f• 1 _ .• � ,u: ;Z.'. '�' � i � • d ,. nc#Pr0•+^••R c�.rc r yr _�.+ .�"all�'".� •' `.' ` t-' 40 t4ARTW. PARK = 1 4 i T it. `n�•� .� 4�.'..... h. : rR.. L f� Yf �r �k f J � � �/ �� r. -'e +i?W=fY hi' •yti , �S � � �� If. IT j6" `e � � i , � fit• _ \� � ' I � � -. � x� . � f �• ,�. I �i,• ��ii�i iii �� � � :��� I +r S� r� A u r I �mijt�� GAG ■ _ � ■ 1 f�1,,11 � 1 , Proposal A Biscayne Boulevard West Description: Biscayne Boulevard relocated West one block to Northwest 2°d 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 $800,000-$900,000 annually. Land Acquisition: Biscayne Boulevard Realignment: Relocate Pump Station: Relocate Utilities: Projected Total Cost: Land acquisition, road relocation, utility relocation (excluding cost of stadium) Property to be acquired is owned by only 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 improvement to Biscayne Boulevard for an equal amount of County/State road funds this cost may be reduced to zero. Not required to accommodate Stadium $8,280,525 per Civil—CARD estimate $73,128,388 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 2"d Avenue. Traffic congestion around Port of Miami and American Airlines Arena * Assumes relocation costs for Biscayne Boulevard are zero. 1 0 -1 SubrMtted into the public record in connection with Waiter Foeman City Gell Effect on CRA: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard will not change district Boundaries by moving boundaries of CRA — Holland & Knight LLP Biscayne Boulevard Timing Issues: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard and relocation of utilities Environmental Issues: Property previously used for gas stations and other commercial uses. Phase II environmental study required. Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena. Submitted into ibe public record in connection with tkM on Wafter Foeman City Clerk 2 01- ;1-)'3 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. 10`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: $148,135.00 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. KI Subfttted into the public record in connection with A9R1 ora / — o Wafter Foeman City Clerk 01- 20"3 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. Submitted into the public record in connection with Watter Foeman City Clerk 4 01-- 20`3 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 $450,000-$500,000 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. 0 SubaUtted into the public record in connection with on ,V i s - I Walter Foeman City Clerk 01, - 2 5A 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: 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. Submitted into the public record In connection with Ron I on 3//S/c Walter Foeman City Clerk 6 Proposal C Miami Arena East Description: Site of existing Miami Arena; bounded on East by Northeast 1st Avenue; on the West by Northwest l" Avenue; on the North by Northeast 81h Street and on the South by Northeast 6th 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 6th 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. Subal4tted imo public retxNd in comecZion with on �t Wailer Foeman City Clerk 01 - 2';'-)j3 DRI Issues: 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. Timing Issues: Relocation of FEC Railway and the AT&T Switching Station and the demolition of the existing Arena. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for commercial uses. Phase II environmental report required. Potential for Generating Development: Site failed to generate development as Miami Arena. Lacks synergies with surrounding developments and other Downtown uses. $Ubrilitt"ea 011 ani j;ujdic recon itt connection with ftwn _— on . //S/o L c� Wetter Foeman `2 `� 3 City Clerk Proposal D Miami Arena West Description: Bounded on the East by the Metrorail Line; Northwest P Avenue on the West; Northwest 8`h Street on the North and Northwest 6`h 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. SubtlNft®d int® VhO. public record Ico reon cti n with hen _.---- Walter Foeman City Clerk 9 01- 2;`-)`3 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. "Dile sub" tt�dnection with �i CO on / o its► —�— WO,Iter FpeC an c tv 10 Proposal E Northeast 9`h 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 9`h 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 Il Environmental Study required. Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena. Submitted into the public record in connection with 1 on -.I of Walter Foeman City Clerk 11 253 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 91' 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 2nd 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 2nd Avenue issue which cost is unknown. relocation (excluding cost of stadium) Legal Impediments: Time required to acquire property by eminent domain. Traffic Issues: Northeast 2nd Avenue. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for commercial uses. Phase II Environmental Study required. SubiNtIvu ittm 0C Public record in connection with iN on -S /. / Waiter Foeman 12 _ 0' 3 City Clerk IQ 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 reMwd in L'on" ection with ftM --- I on Wailer Foeman .� City Clerk 13 01 1020 �-'3 3/12/01 FINANCIAL IMPACT OF STADIUM PROPOSALS 0 TAX INCREMENT REVENUES Subrmitted into the public record in connectio with on WaiterFFo' eman City CJwk INVESTMENT SERVICES INVESTMENT HANSSNG alk 9 3/12/01 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONI...................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 Purposeof Study..........................................................................................................................1 Descriptionof the CRA................................................................................................................1 SEOPWBoundaries.....................................................................................................................1 StudyScope and Methods............................................................................................................ I Historical Tax Increment Revenue...............................................................................................2 SECTIONII..................................................................................................................................3 Variations of Proposed Baseball Stadium....................................................................................3 Proposal A — Biscayne Boulevard East 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 ProposalC — 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 SubrMtted into the public record in connection with rMn on3/i Zo/ Wafter Foeman 01 — 255 3 City Clerk 3/12/01 . SubWttgd into the public record in connection with rmn _J_- on y- Wafter Foeman INVESTMENT SERVICES (� (� INVESTMENT RANKING City Clerk 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 5t' 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. 01- ,V2 19 3/12/01 Only the Biscayne Boulevard frontage properties located north of NE 7' 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. Subfttteo avio iroto; public record in c0fnneLrs n with on . � / Walter Foeman City Clerk V _ "' 5 2 Subimitted into the _ .blic record In connection with �� �'-/�l il9Ri t —on SECTION II +—Wafter Foeman City Clerk 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 2nd 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's 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 Boulevard 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 Asslclnptions: 1) Not taking into consideration recent land purchases that woldd increase the assessed value of the land 2) unchanged a,sscs.sed values since F)' 1999-2000 Bisc. Blvd. East Site klcn�7�. -19.P1111111 (Move Bisc. Blvd. West) FY 2000-01i $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 fin Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (35,154,368) Base Property Value (78.305.5021 (78.305.502) $ 67,183,969 Increased Property Value $ 32,029,601 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 30,428,121 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941.160 448.699 (492,467) % Change -52% 0-- 3 3112101 $ebrnitted into the public mrd in conn echwith Proposal A — Biscrvne Boulevard East Sile Cont'd) Ron _�, on e Scenario 11: Howard Johnson Site Included Walter FCler City Clerk 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. Additiolud ztssrnnlNions. l) Parcels cru-rentlI, occllpicd hY lloward ,lohmort's would he available for redevelops n>nt and on the la -r rolls Bisc. Blvd. East Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. West) ' 00-01 Tax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 Reduction of Tax Roll (30,154,368) Base Property Value (78.305.502) (78.305.5021 increased Property Value $ 67,183,969 $ 37,029,601 CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 35,178,121 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941.160 518.737 (422,423) % Change -451% Howard 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 Proposal B — Biscayne Boulevard West Site 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`'' street and West to Northeast 2"d Ave. This proposal however does propose adding depth to the blocks South of Northeast 8"' 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 rolls under Proposal B total $10,574,477. Q 4 Submitted intO t`1 public record in cones in with 1lAlR1 On ��l 3/12/01 Walter Foeman Proposal B— Biscayne Boulevard West Site (Cont'd City Cleric 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 NS I/ rtptiolts: 1) Not t(iking into consideration recent land ptirchases that mould increase the assessed vahic ol'the land 2) Unchanged assessed ralnes since l..). 1999-2000 Bisc. Blvd. West Site Proposal FY 2000-01 Impact (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) FY 2000-01 Tax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 Reduction of Tax Roll (10,574,477) Base Property Value (78.305.502) (78.305.502) $ 67,183,969 Increased Property Value $ 56,609,492 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 53,779,017 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.01474 Tax Increment Revenue 941.160 793.025 (148,135) Change -16% Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal B -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 9t' Street. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal B — Scenario II total $18,479,018. Sub1nitted into —9 public record in conn, _join with 31122/0 I on Waiter Foeman Proposal B — Biscayne Boulevard West Site (Cont'd) City Clerk 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. Bisc. Blvd. West Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East)FY 2000-01 $ 145,489,471 FY 2000-01 $ 145,489,471 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roil Incremental (18,479,018) CRA Base Property Value (78.305.502) (78.305.502) Increment $ $ 67,183,969 Increased Property Value $ 48,704,951 Increment $ 61,338- 95% 95% $ CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 46,269,703 $ Millage Rate 0.01474 0.01474 $ Tax Increment Revenue 941.160 682248 (258,867) 122,676 Change $ 200 -28% Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal B-H 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 B41 Development Growth Opportunities for Boulevard Frontage Lots North of NE 7th Street (Bilks 41, 40) 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 Redeveloament Blks Sq. Ft. Price/ Sq. Ft. Incremental CRA Tax (1-4.SAcres) 45,140 Price/Sq.Ft. $ 200 Increment $ 97 Assessed $ Value 4,378,580 Increment $ 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 Subimitted into tO- public record in conneck- _ . I with 3112/0 i I on Wafter Foeman Proposal C — Miami Arena East City Clerk This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located in the Miami Arena East area bounded by Northeast V Avenue on the East; Northwest l' Avenue on the West; Northeast 8"' Street on the North and Northeast 6d' 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 • .. . IFY 0002000-01 ImpacAt Tax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 Reduction of Tax Roll (9,901,990) Base Property Value (78,305,502) 7 30 2 $ 67,183,969 $ 57,281,979 Increased Property Value 95% 95% RA's Tax Base 63,824,771 54,417,880 Millage Rate 0.01474 0.01474 8x Increment Revenue (138,714) /o Change -15�i Proposal D — Miami Arena West (Poinciaira This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located in the Miami Arena West area bounded by Northwest V Avenue (Metrorail Line) on the East; N.W. 3rd Avenue (I-95) on the West; Northwest 8d' 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 Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 fiction of Tax Roll $ (9,126,990) Property Value (78.305.502) (78,305,502 )ased Property Value $ 67,183,969 $ 58,056,979 �'s Tax Base 63,824,771 55,154,130 age Rate 0.01474 0.01474 Increment Revenue (127,857) han a _140 Of - 7 3/12/01 Proposal E — N.E. 9"' Street 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 11th Street on the North and Northeast 90' 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 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Change 145,489,4711 $ 145,489,471 $ (15,103,036) 67,183,9691 $ 52,080,933 95%149,476 5% 95% 63, 824, 771 49, 476, 886 729.5861 (211.574 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. During the 2000 calendar year, several lots on the Boulevard frontage were purchased for amounts ranging from $150 /sq. ft. to $175 / 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 North of NE 7th Street (Blocks 41. 40.21 338,447 $ 150 $ 47 $ 15,907,009 $ 222,837 338,447 $ 175 $ 72 $ 24,368,184 $ 341,367 338,447 $ 200 $ 97 $ 32.829.359 $ 459.897 Submitted into the put)"C record in connection � with ) itemon Walter Foeman City Clerk 8 3/12/01 Proposal F – N.E. 2"`I Avenue This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located fronting Biscayne Boulevard on the East; Northeast ls` Avenue on the West; I-395 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 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 - Unaffecl Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Change 145,489,471 (25,925,474) 67,183,9691 $ 41,2 95% 63,824,771 39,1 (363,182) -39% 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) Sub¢nitted into the public record in connection with rwn I on Wafter Foeman City Clerk 01— 253 9 Submitted into t public regi In connection with 3/12/01 on SUMMARY Wafter Foeman Ity Clerk The placement of the Baseball Stadium is crucial to the CRA. �t 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. 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 Al and All (Biscayne Boulevard East Site), Proposal B-H (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 DecreaseI $ (492,46o7)I /o $ (422,423)I $ (148,1 /o Tax Increment Revenue Decrease -52 /0 45 -1 Optimal Development Option Offset 65.085 306.691 19 Net Tax Increment $ Increase/Decrease $ (492,467) $ (357,339) $ 158,556 $ (61 Summary of Tax Increment Revenue Increasest(Decreases) based on Current Property Sales of " 25,2 10 (Miami Arena) $ (138,714) (Poinclana) $ (127,857) $ (211,574) $ (363,182) Tax Increment $ Revenue Decrease Tax Increment % Revenue Decrease -15% -14% -22% -39% Optimal Development Option Offset 459.897 459,897 459.897 196.964 Net Tax Increment $ Increase/Decrease $ 321,183 $ 332,039 $ 248,323 $ (166,218) of " 25,2 10 3/12/01 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. Submitted into the public record in connection with 1teRl 1 on Wafter Foeman y r City Clerk 3/12/01 $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. Submitted into the public record in connection with Waller Foeman City Clerk a '"' 12 3/12/01 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. 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. Subrrtitted into tak-,, puoiic record in conn", ion with MBRI �_ on--SJ-1:!E2 o ) Wafter Foeman City Clerk submitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value record in cOnnec,ion with Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter r+J -J, On Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Wafter FOeman cu Clerk Pr000sal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2001-022001-02 $ 160,038,418 $ 160,038.418 TIR „ , $ 176,042,260 2002-03 $ 176,042,260 - 2003-04 $ 193,646,486 IFY 2003-04 $ 193,646,486 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Rall $ 160,038,418 (43,942,960) $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll (54,928,700) (13,218,096) (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) (68,660,875) (16,522,620) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 $ 37,789,956 $ 97,736,758 $ 42,808,058 $ 115,340,984 $ 46,680,109 Increased Property Value $ 81,214,138 $ 115,340,984 $ 94,687,709 Increased Property Value 95% 95% (78,305,502) 951% 95% 95 % 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 35,900,458 $ 115,340,984 92,849,920 40,667,655 65,089,079 109,573,935 44,346,103 77,153,431 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 95% 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.0147460.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 529,388 (615_58 41 1,369,165 599,685 (769.480) 1,615,777 653,928 (961.850) (231.46 1,615,777 1,326,452 289.3261 0.014746 52 SA5) Chan 54 ^� -56° -60' 1 OF -L's -21 RI TC o. , o , Bisc. Blvd. East FY 2001-022001-02 Proposal B-11 TIR 2002-03 $ 176,042,260 2002-03 - $ 193,646,486 IFY 2003-04 Tax Roll $ 160,038,418 $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll 3-04 (13,218,096) (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) „ (16,522,620) $ 176,042,260 Tax Roll (20,653,275) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 193,646,486 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (13,179,549) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 $ 68,514,820 $ 97,736,758 $ 81,214,138 $ 115,340,984 $ 94,687,709 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95 % 95 % (78,305,502) 95 % 95% $ 58,634,144 95 % 95% $ 115,340,984 CRA's Tax Base 1 77,646,270 65,089,079 95% 92,849,920 77,153,431 959/6 109,573,935 89,953,323 95% Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 95% 0.014746 0.0147460.014746 77,646,270 55,702,436 0.014746 92,849,920 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 959,804 (185.168) 1,369,165 1,137,704 (231.46 1,615,777 1,326,452 289.3261 0.014746 52 SA5) 0.014746 0.014746 (167.844) Chan -16', -170,11 -18'� Bisc. Blvd. West Site Proposal B-11 TIR Proposal : - Proposal,, 2001-02 2001-02 „ , 2002-03 „ ,3 Impact 3-04 Impact -- (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) „ $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 Tax Roll $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646,486 $ 193,646,486 Reduction W Tax Roll (13,179,549) (23,098,773) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (28,873,466) (78,305,502) (36,091,832) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 85,755,350 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 81,732,916 $ 58,634,144 $ 97,736,758 $ 68,863,292 $ 115,340,984 $ 79,249,152 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 959/6 95% CRA's Tax Base 95% 95% 9556 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 55,702,436 Millage Rate 92,849,920 65,420,128 109,573,935 75,286,694 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 0.014746 0.014746 52 SA5) 0.014746 0.014746 (167.844) Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 821,388 (323.584) 1,369,165 964,685 (404.480) 1,615,777 1,110,178 (505.600), 3^-- 12% % Chan -2W- -30`?/� -3 t ?. Proposal C - Arena East 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 $ 176,042,260 „ ,3 Impact IFY 2003-04 $ 193,646,486 FY 2003-04 $ 193,646,486 Impact --1FY Tax Roll $ 160,038,418 $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 Reduction of Tax Roll (10,892,189) (11,981,408) (13,179,549) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 $ 70,840,727 $ 97,736,758 $ 85,755,350 $ 115,340,984 $ 102,161,435 Increased Property Value 951/6 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 67,298,691 92,849,920 81,467,583 109,573,935 97,053,363 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 992,386 52 SA5) 1,3691474 1,201,321 (167.844) 1,615,777 1,431,149 nAa.628) % Chan 3^-- 12% 01- 253 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 F - Unallect Blvd. Proposal F TIR Proposal- - FY 2001-022001-02 2002-03 2002-03 , , , 00 NE2nd Ave. $ 193,646,486 Tax Roll $ 160,038,418 $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll (32,406,843) (40,508,553) (50,635,691) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 $ 49,326,074 $ 97,736,758 $ 57,228,205 $ 115,340,984 $ 64,705,292 Increased Property Value 959/6 959/6 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 46,859,770 92,849,920 54,366,795 109,573,935 61,470,028 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 690,994 (453.9781 1,369,165 801,693 (567.472) 1,615,777 906,437 (709.340) Chan -40"- -41^' -44 Submitted into the public record In connection � with Wiwi I on �L' 5-11 Walter Foeman City Clerk 01— 2 5- 15 Oinnnc �l A Bisc. Blvd. East FY 2004-052004-05 $ 213,011,134 SubMitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 rem in connection with Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter FY 2006-07FY $ 225,983,513 i On / Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafterkm -'-"-"- Reduction of Tax Roll Walter Foeman Proposal A - Scenario I Proposal A-1 TIR ••,, (27,107,424) Bisc. Blvd. East Site „• _21704-05 „ ,. ,. ,,,, 2006-07 Impac Tax Roll $ 213,011,134 $ 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) Increased Property Value $ 134,705,632 $ 48,879,539 $ 141,095,967 $ 50,978,568 $ 147,678,011 $ 53,054,742 9596 95% 951/6 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base127,970,351 46,435,562 134,041,168 48,429,640 140,294,110 50,402,005 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax increment Ravenue1,887,051 684,739 (1202.312) 1,976,571 714,143 262.428) 2,068,777 743,228 (1.325.`_ 1/6 Change -64' 95% -64 F Oinnnc �l A Bisc. Blvd. East FY 2004-052004-05 $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 Impact 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 FY 2DOS-06 Impact FY 2006-07FY $ 225,983,513 ,,. -07 $ 225,983,513 Impact Tax Roll $ 219,401,469 Reduction of Tax Roll (25,816,594) (27,107,424) (28,462,795) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 108,889,038 $ 141,095,967 $ 113,988,543 $ 147,678,011 $ 119,215,215 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 951/6 CRXs 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 (361.657) 1,976,571 1,596,8311. 1 879740) 2,068,777 1,670,050 (398.727) Chan .19 -191,-19^, 34°;. (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) FY 2004-052004-05 $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 Impact 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 FY 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 Impact FY 2006-072006-07 $ 225,983,513 $ 225,983,513 Impact Tax Roll 213,011,134 Reduction of Tax Roll (45,114,790) (47,370,530) (49,739,056) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 89,590,842 $ 141,095,967 $ 93,725,437 $ 147,678,011 $ 97,938,955 Increased Property Value 95% 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 127,970,351 85,111,300 134,041,168 89,039,165 140,294,110 93,042,007 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Q•014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,887,051 1,255,051 (632.000) 1,976,571 1,312,972 663.6001 2,068,777 1,371,997 696.7801 Chan .33' , -34'+ 34°;. 16 FY 2004-05 $ 213,011,134$ FY 2004-05 Impact FY 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 IFY 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 Impact FY 2006-07 $ 225,983,513 FY 2DO6-07 $ 225,983,513 Impact Tax Roll 213,011,134 Reduction of Tax Roll (14,497,504) (14,932,429) (15,380,402) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 120,208,129 $ 141,095,967 $ 126,163,538 $ 147,678,011 $ 132,297,609 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 127,970,351 114,197,722 134,041,168 119,855,361 140,294,110 125,682,729 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,887,051 1,683,960 203.091) 1,976,571 1,767,387 209.1841 2,068,777 1,853.318 (215.4591 % Change 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 Tax increment Revenue $ 213,011,134I $ 213,011,134 (22,112,355' $ 134,705,632 FY 2004-05 $ 213,011,134 2004-05 $ 213,011,134 95% 127,970,351 0,014746 2005-06 $ 219,401,469 FY 2005-06 Impact FY 2006-0700. $ 225,983,513 $ 225,983,513 impact Tax Roll $ 213,011,134 $ 219,401,469 Reduction of Tax Roll $ 219,401,469 (13,362,826) (63,294,614) (13,763,711) (66,459,345) (14,176,622) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 121,342,806 $ 141,095,967 $ 127,332,256 $ 147,678,011 $ 133,501,388 Increased Property Value Increased Property Value $ 71,411,018 95% 95 */* 951/6 95% 95% 95% 959/6 95% 95% CRNs Tax Base 127,970,351 115,275,666 127,970,351 134,041,168 120,965,643 134,041,168 140,294,110 126,826,319 140,294,110 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.01,571 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax IncrementRevenue 1001451 1,699,855 87196) 1,976,571 1,783,759 n92.812) 2,068,777 1,870,181 98.596) 1,091,217 977.559) %Chan -10'° -10 a7�, 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 Tax increment Revenue $ 213,011,134I $ 213,011,134 (22,112,355' $ 134,705,632 $ 112,593,277 95% 95% 127,970,351 0,014746 106, 963, 614 0,0147 1,887,051 1,577,285 $ 219,401,469 1 $ 219,401,469 $ 141,095,967 $ 118,320,241 951/o 95% 134, 041,168 112, 404,229 9.014746 0,014.74( (309.765) 1,976,571 1,657,513 -16", $ 225,983,513 $ 225,983,513 (23,458,997) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 147,678,011 $ 124,219,013 95% 95% 140,294,110 118,008,062 (319,058)11 2,068,777 1 1,740,147 NE 2nd Ave. FY 2004-05004 200 5-06 $ 219,401,469 FY 2005-06 Impact FY 2006-07 $ 225,983,513 ..rr. -07 $ 225,983,513 impact Tax Roll $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 $ 219,401,469 Reduction of Tax Roll (63,294,614) (66,459,345) (69,782,312) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 141,095,967 $ 74,636,622 $ 147,678,011 $ 77,895,698 Increased Property Value $ 71,411,018 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRXsTax Base 127,970,351 67,840,467 134,041,168 70,904,790 140,294,110 74,000,913 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,887,051 1,000,376 (886.675) 1,976,571 1,045,562 (931.009) 2,068,777 1,091,217 977.559) 1% Change a7�, -479 -4Ti Sub"'Itted into the pubfic record in connection with 1 On .2� Walter Foeman .. City Clerk Submitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value recofd in connection with Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter 169R! _� On r� L Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Wafter Foeman Pr000sal A -Scenario I r„W. r_ - Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 FY 2007-08 Impact FY 2008-09 FY--rr: r• $ 239,745,908 Impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 (99,354,432) r• impact (104,322,153) FY 2009 -10 $ 246,938,286 In I (109,538,261) Tax Roll Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 55,103,084 $ 161,440,406 $ 57,118,253 $ 168,632,784 $ 59,094,523 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 95% $ 154,457,516 95% 95% $ 71,955,976 950/6 95% Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 52,347,930 153,368,386 54,262,340 160,201,145 56,139,797 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 CRA's Tax Base 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax lncrememRevenue 2,163,749 771,923 39LA26) 2,261,570 80.152 a61A18) 2,362,326 827,837 1 (1534,489) 0.014746 0.014746 1,941,826 1 2,163,749 969,882 Chan -64^- 1 -65"" -65° Proposal A - Scenario II FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 Proposal A-11 Impact TIR FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 ,•rr: FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 200 7-08 200 7-08 FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 2008 -09 $ 239,745,908 r• impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009 -10 $ 246,938,286 In I Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (85,223,267) (78,305,502) (89,484,431) $ 154,457,516 (93,958,652) $ 161,440,406 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 951/6 $ 154,457,516 $ 69,234,249 $ 161,440,406 $ 71,955,976 $ 168,632,784 $ 74,674,132 Increased Property Value CRA'sTax Base 146,734,640 97,119,932 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 0.014746 CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 65,772,536 153,368,386 68,358,177 160,201,145 70,940,425 1,432,131 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 (768.199) 0.014746 0.014746 (806.609) 0.014746 0.014746 1,941,826 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 969,882 (1,193.867) 2,261,570 1,008,010 (1.253.561) 2,362,326 1,046,088 316,239) %Chan -10"� I 0�1 Chan -55". .5Y/1 (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) I FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 FY 2007-08 Impact FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 Impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 (52,226,009) FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 •saIC FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 (54,837,309) Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 (57,579,175) $ 239,745,908 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 102,231,507 $ 161,440,406 $ 106,603,097 $ 168,632,784 $ 111,053,609 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 95% 951/6 $ 145,123,339 95% 951% Increased Property Value 959/6 959% CRA'sTax Base 146,734,640 97,119,932 153,368,386 101,272,942 160,201,145 105,500,929 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,432,131 (731.618) 2,261,570 1,493,371 (768.199) 2,362,326 1,555,717 (806.609) Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,941,826 (221.923) 2,261,570 2,032,989 % Chan -34` -34^� -34°1 Proposal C - Arena East FY 200 7-08 Proposal C TIR ProposalPro• _ FY 2007-08 Impact FY 200" FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 Impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 •saIC FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Ruction of Tax Roll (15,841,814) (16,317,068) (16,806,580) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 138,615,702 $ 161,440,406 $ 145,123,339 $ 168,632,784 $ 151,826,204 Increased Property Value 95% 951% 95% 95% 951% 95% CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 131,684,917 153,368,386 137,867,172 160,201,145 144,234,894 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,941,826 (221.923) 2,261,570 2,032,989 (228.581) 2,362,326 2,126,888 1 (235.438) %Chan -10"� I 0�1 -10 i 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 FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 Impact FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 FY ,,: ,• Impact FY 2000-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 Impact FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 Impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 1 $ 246,938,286 .Pact Tax Roll $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value (14,601,921) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (15,039,978) (78,305,502) (15,491,178) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 161,440,406 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 142,998,504 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 87,851,035 $ 154,457,516 $ 139,855,595 $ 161,440,406 $ 146,400,428 $ 168,632,784 $ 153,141,606 Increased Property Value 95% 959/6 951/6 95% 123,780,011 95% 95% 129,725,118 951/6 95% 135,848,579 CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 132,862,815 0,014746 153,368,366 139,080,407 0.014746 160,201,145 145,484,526 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 4 1,825,260 0.014746 0.014746 1,912,927 0.014746 0.014746 2,003,223 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 10,014 (204.554) 2,261,570 2,050,880 (210.691) 2,362,326 2,145,315 (21 7.011 ) -15"/1 -47'., -48��. -48°, Chan -9"" -9-1 -9°� Pronosal E - Unartect Blvd. NE 9th Street FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 $ 232,763,018 Impact FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 FY ,,: ,• Impact FY 2000-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll (24,162,767) Reduction of Tax Roll (24,887,650) (25,634,280) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 130,294,749 $ 161,440,406 $ 136,552,756 $ 168,632,784 $ 142,998,504 Increased Property Value $ 168,632,784 $ 87,851,035 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 959/6 CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 123,780,011 CRA'sTax Base 153,368,386 129,725,118 160,201,145 135,848,579 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,825,260 (338.489) 2,261,570 1,912,927 (348.644) 2,362,326 2,003,223 (359.103) 2,362,326 1,230,679 (1.131.647) `,, Change -16°,. -15^' -15"/1 NE 2nd Ave. FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 Impact FY 2008-09 $ 239,745,908 FY 2DOO-09 Impact FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 FY 2009-10 $ 246,938,286 Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 Reduction of Tax Roll (73,271,428) (76,934,999) (80,781,749) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 81,186,088 $ 161,440,406 $ 84,505,407 $ 168,632,784 $ 87,851,035 Increased Property Value 959/6 95% 95% 959/6 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 Q•014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,137,312 (1.026.437) 2,261,570 1,183,811 (1077,759) 2,362,326 1,230,679 (1.131.647) 1% Change -47'., -48��. -48°, Subm+tted into the public record in connection with int Ion 1.3 v Walter Foeman city clerk " .AS 19 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 CRXs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Chance isrrrrsr��cvrssrm. c Submittea imo the public record in connection with Ron on t 5 f IL-ki Waiter Foeman $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 $ 261,976,827 , $ 261,976,827 $ 269,836,132 $ 26.9,836,132 , 12-13 $ 269,836,132 impact (115,015,174) Reduction of Tax Roll (120,765,933) Impact , $ 261,976,827 (126,804,229) mpact, (78,305,502) (78,305,502) impact (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 61,025,758 $ 183,671,325 $ 62,905,3.93 $ 191,530,630 $ 64,726,401 95% 95% $ 191,530,630 95% 951/6 (78,305,502) 951/6 95% (78,305,502) 167,238,886 0.014746 57,974,470 9Q��(2 $ 176,040,932 174,487,759 59,760,123 $ 183,671,325 181,954,099 61,490,081 $ 124,875,538 2,466,105 654,892 (11611213) �47� 2,572,996 881,223 (1.691 774) �46 2,683,095 X46 906,733 176.362 Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 , $ 261,976,827 , $ 261,976,827 ProposaIB41Proposal , $ 269,636,132 , 12-13 $ 269,836,132 impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (98,656,585) Impact , $ 261,976,827 (103,589,414) mpact, 12-13 $ 269,836,132 (108,768,885) impact Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 254,346,434 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (60,458,133) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (63,481,040) $ 176,040,932 $ 77,384,348 $ 183,671,325 $ 80,081,911 $ 191,530,630 $ 82,761,746 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 95% $ 176,040,932 951/6 95% $ 183,671,325 95% 95% $ 124,875,538 CRNs Tax Base 167,238,886 73,515,130 174,487,759 76,077,816181,954,099 95% 95% 78,623,658 95% Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 CRA's Tax Base Q•014746 0.014746 109,803,659 0.014746 0.014746 114,180,771 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,084,054 (1,382.050) 2,572,996 1,121,843 (1.451.153) 2,683,095 1,159,384 (1.523111) 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 Chan -56". -56°x. -57ei Bisc. Blvd. West Site 2010-11 Proposal B41 TIR ProposaIB41Proposal , $ 254,346,434 Impact , $ 261,976,827 , $ 261,976,827 mpact, 12-13 $ 269,836,132 FY 2012-13 $ 269,836,132 impact (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) $ 254,346,434 Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 Reduction of Tax Roll (17,310,777) (60,458,133) (17,830,101) (63,481,040) (18,365,004) (66,655,092) Base Property Value Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,5021 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 176,040,932 $ 115,582,799 $ 183,671,325 $ 120,190,285 $ 191,530,630 $ 124,875,538 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 955/6 95% CRA's Tax Base CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 109,803,659 174,487,759 174,487,759 114,180,771 181,954,099 181,954,099 118,631,761 Millage Rate Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,619,165 (846.940) 2,572,996 1,683,710 889.287) 2,683,095 1,749,344 (933.751) % Chan % Chan -34 '; -35, 35' Proposal C - Arena East 2010-11 FY 2010-11 Impact FY 2011-12 $ 261,976,827 FY 2011-12 $ 261,976,827 Impact FY 2012-13 $ 269,836,132 ..�FY FY 12-13 $ 269,836,132 Impact Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 Reduction of Tax Roll (17,310,777) (17,830,101) (18,365,004) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 158,730,155 $ 183,671,325 $ 165,841,225 $ 191,530,630 $ 173,165,626 Increased Property Value 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 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.0147460.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 2,223,603 (242.501) 2,572,996 2,323,220 (249.777) 2,683,095 2,425,825 257.270) % Chan -10'- -10°1 01, 253 20 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 FY 2010-11 $ 254,346,434 FY 2010-11 $ 254,346,434 Impact FY 2011-12 $ 261,976,827 FY 2011-12 $ 261,976,827 Impact FY 2012-13 $ 269,836,132 FY 2012-13 $ 269,836,132 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 (15,955,913) Reduction of Tax Roll (84,820,837) (16,434,591) (89,061,878) (16,927,628) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 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 $ 191,530,630 $ 163,519,360 Increased Property Value 959/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 152,080,768 CRA's Tax Base 174,487,759 158,874,898 174,487,759 181,954,099 165,872,852 181,954,099 Millage Rate 0.014746 Q•014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 2,242,583 223.522) 2,572,996 2,342,769 1230.227) 2.683,095 2.445,961 237.134) 2,683,095 2,290,694 (392.4011 %Chan .g^- -gam, gni Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, NE 9th Street $ 254,346,434 r , $ 261,976,827 ,2012-13• $ 269,636,132 ,0 $ 269,836,132 Impact Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 Reduction of Tax Roll (84,820,837) (26,403,308) (89,061,878) (27,195,408) (93,514,972) (28,011,270) Base Property Value Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 176,040,932 $ 149,637,624 $ 183,671,325 $ 156,475,918 $ 191,530,630 $ 163,519,360 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 142,155,743 174,487,759 174,487,759 148,652,122 181,954,099 181,954,099 155,343,392 Millage Rate Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.0147460,.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue Tax increment Revenue 2,466,105 2,096,229 (369.876) 2,572,996 2,192,024 (380.972) 2,683,095 2,290,694 (392.4011 % Chan `..� Change - 15', 49"' IL Proposal F - Unaffect Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. $ 254,346,434 r , $ 261,976,827 , , $ 269,836,132 FY , 12-13 $ 269,836,132 Impact Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 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 $ 91,220,096 $ 183,671,325 $ 94,609,447 $ 191,530,630 $ 98,015,658 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 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 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,277,875 ( 188.230) 2,572,996 1,325,355 0.247.641) 2,683,095 1,373,072 (1.310.023) % Chan -48. -48" 49"' Submitted into the public Word in connection with 1 on Z / v Walter Foeman City Clerk 01— 253 21 ubanmitted into the public record in connection with Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value �_ on ,�1.�Ls.� Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Waiter Foeman Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter City Clerk U4 -d 0, - Proposal A - Scenario 1 Bisc. Blvd. East Site r $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 Proposal 84 , , mpact $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 ,15-16 $ 294,857,227 FY , 15-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (133,144,441) Reduction of Tax Roll (139,801,663) (69,987,847) (146,791,746) , $ 286,269,153 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 66,481,273 $ 216,551,725 $ 69,759,979 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) $ 207,963,651 $ 68,161,988 $ 199,625,714 $ 129,637,867 95% 95% $ 216,551,725 959% 95% 951/6 95% Base Property Value CRA'sTax Base 189,644,428 63,157,210 951% 197,565,468 64,753,888 205,724,139 66,271,980 (78,305.502) Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 $ 199,625,714 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 $ 216,551,725 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 931,316 1.865.181) 2,913,300 954.861 ( 958.440) 3,033,608 977,247 x2.056.3621 95% 951/6 955/6 Chan -67^-, -67"- -68^'. Proposal B FY 2013-14, $ 277,931,216 Proposal 84 TIR mpactFY Proposalmpact FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Proposal Reduction of Tax Roll FY r (69,987,847) , $ 286,269,153 , $ 286,269,153 Impact FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 IFY , 15-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Bisc. Blvd. East (78,305,502) Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (40,050,011) $ 199,625,714 $ 129,637,867 (42,052,512) $ 216,551,725 $ 139,390,124 (44,155,137) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 951% (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 951% (78,305.502) (78,305,502) 951% $ 199,625,714 $ 159,575,703 $ 207,963,651 $ 165,911,139 $ 216,551,725 $ 172,396,588 Increased Property Value 205,724,139 132,420,618 959/6 Millage Rate 95% 95% 951/6 955/6 95% 0.014746 95% 95% Tax Increment Revenue CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 151,596,918 2,913,300 1,883.840 197,565,468 157,615,682 1,952,674 205,724,139 163,776,759 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 % Chan 0.014746 0.014746 .38% 0.014746 0.014746 2,796,497 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 2,235,448 561.049) 2,913,300 2,324,199 589.101) 3,033,608 2,415,052 (618.556) Chan -91 % Chan -20"' -20 -20"' (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) FY 2013-14, $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 , $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 mpactFY , 15-16 $ 294,857,227 FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll FY r (69,987,847) (73,487,239) $ 286,269,153 Impact (77,161,601) FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 277,931,216 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 129,637,867 $ 207,963,651 $ 134,476,412 $ 216,551,725 $ 139,390,124 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 951% 95% (78,305,502) 95% 951% 95% 951% $ 207,963,651 CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 123,155,974 Increased Property Value 197,565,468 127,752,591 205,724,139 132,420,618 959/6 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 951/6 0.014746 0.014746 959% 0.014746 0.014746 CRXs Tax Base Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 1,816,058 (980.439) 2,913,300 1,883.840 n.029A61) 3.033,608 1,952,674 0 080.934) Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 % Chan -35 ', -35-1 .38% Proposal C - Arena East FY r r ,2014-15 $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 Impact FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 Reduction of Tax Roll (18,915,954) (19,483,432) (20,067,935) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 180,709,760 $ 207,963,651 $ 188,480,218 $ 216,551,725 $ 196,483,790 Increased Property Value 959/6 951/6 95% 951/6 959% 95% CRXs Tax Base 44 189,6,428 171,674,272 197,565,468 179,056,207 205,724,139 186,659,600 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 2,531,509 (264.988) 2,913,300 2,640,363 (272.938) 3,033,608 2,752,482 (281.126) Chan -91 -9„, -91 22 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 $ 294,857,227 (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (30,608,671) (78,305,502) $ 216,551,725 $ 185,943,054 , Proposal 95% 95% 205, 724,139 0.014746 FY 2013-14 $ 277,931,216 FY 2013-14 $ 277,931,215 Impact FY 2014-15 $ 286,269,153 FY 2014-15 -Impact___ $ 286,269,153 __ IFY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 FY 2015-16 $ 294,857,227 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll NE 2nd Ave. (17,435,457) $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,218 (17,958,521) $ 286,269,153 (18,497,276) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (103,100,257) $ 199,625,714 $ 182,190,257 $ 207,963,651 $ 216,551,725 $ 198,054,449 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) $ 190,005,130 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 95% (78,305,502) 95% 95% 95% 95% $ 104,863,394 CRXsTax Base 189,644,428 173,080,744 197,565,468 180,504,873 205,724,139 188,151,726 95% Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 189,644,428 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 2,552,249 (244.2481 2,913,300 2,661,725 (251.576) 3.033,608 2,774,485 (259 123) 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Chan -9" -9`i' -g�• Proposal E - Unallect Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Properly Value Increased Property Value CRNs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue $ 277,931,216 1 $ 277,931,216 $ 199,625,714 $ 170,774,106 95% 95A 189,644,428 162,235,401 0.014746 0,.0147 2,796,497 2,392,323 $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 (29,717,156) (78,305,502) (78,305,5021 $ 207,963,651 $ 178,246,495 95% 95% 197, 565, 468 169, 334,170 9.4]-4Z4fi 4,41.4Z4s (404na) 2,913,300 2,497,002 t q ": Proposal F- Unaffect Blvd. $ 294,857,227 (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (30,608,671) (78,305,502) $ 216,551,725 $ 185,943,054 , Proposal 95% 95% 205, 724,139 0.014746 176, 645, 902 (416.299) 3,033,608 0.014746 2,604,820 426.788 • , 15-16 Impact Proposal F- Unaffect Blvd. , Proposal ,, 00 • , 15-16 Impact NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,218 $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 $ 294,857,227 $ 294,857,227 Reduction of Tax Roll (98,190,721) (103,100,257) (108,255,270) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 101,434,993 $ 207,963,651 $ 104,863,394 $ 216,551,725 $ 108,296,455 Increased Property Value 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 (1.375.524) 2,913,300 1,469,000 f1 444.3011 3,033.608 1,517,093 (1.516.5161 % Chan -49' -50", -50" Submitted into the public record in connection with Wager Foeman J: • • n .. City Clerk 01. O� 23 Sut1lititted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value MCOM In connection With Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter ---+- on . �/ (/� Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Waiter Foeman Proposal A - Scenario I IFY 2016-17 $ 303,702,944 Proposal A-1 TIR TIR Proposal ProposalProposal TIR IFY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 Impact Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 , $ 312,814,032 , $ 312,814,032 , $ 312,814,032 mpact,18-19 $ 322,198,453 FY ; -19 $ 322,198,453 Impact Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 (154,131,333) Reduction of Tax Roll Increased Property Value (161,837,900) Base Property Value (169,929,795) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 243,892,951 $ 225,397,442 $ 71,266,109 $ 234,508,530 $ 72,670,630 $ 243,892,951 $ 73,963,156 Increased Properly Value $ 243,892,951 $ 192,777,861 Increased Property Value 2,867,966 95% 95% 2,986,913 95% 95% 137,158,873 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214,127,570 67,702,803 CRA'sTax Base 222,783,104 69,037,099 9, 231,698,304 70,264,998 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 3,285,160 2,093,430 0.014746 0.014746 2,165,307 Tax Increment Ravenue 3,157,525 998,346 (2159.180) 3,285,160 1,018,021 (2267.139) 3,416,623 1,036,128 12 380.496) 3,416,623 2,700,567 716.056) % Chan -68" -69.,' -70.,,: Proposal IFY 2016-17 $ 303,702,944 Proposal B4 TIR TIR Proposal Impact TIR IFY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 Impact Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 (78,305,502) , ,mpact $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814,032 , $ 312,814,032 , sal B-11 • •t ; -19 $ 322,198,453 , ; $ 322,198,453 FY Proposal 1 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 $ 303,702,944 Bisc. Blvd. East Reduction of Tax Roll Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 Reduction of Tax Roll Increased Property Value (46,362,894) Base Property Value (48,681,039) (78,305,502) 95% 194,491,095 (51,115,091) 95% 222,783,104 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 243,892,951 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 0.014746 $ 225,397,442 $ 179,034,548 $ 234,508,530 $ 185,827,492 $ 243,892,951 $ 192,777,861 Increased Property Value 2,867,966 95% 959% 2,986,913 950% 95% 137,158,873 959/o 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 214,127,570 170,082,821 9, 222,783,104 176,536,117 0.014746 231,698,304 183,138,968 Tax Increment Revenue Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 3,285,160 2,093,430 0.014746 4.014746 2,165,307 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,508,041 (649 484) 3,285,160 2,603,202 681.958) 3,416,623 2,700,567 716.056) %Chan 21 - -21 �/ 21 " Bisc. Blvd. West Site IFY 2016-17 $ 303,702,944 Proposal B-11 ImpactFY TIR Proposal - -11 Impact TIR IFY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 Impact Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 (78,305,502) , ,mpact $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814,032 FY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 sal B-11 • •t ; -19 $ 322,198,453 TIR Impact (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) $ 303,702,944 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll $ 204,727,468 (81,019,681) $ 213,218,458 (85,070,665) $ 221,964,176 Increased Property Value (89,324,198) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 194,491,095 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 222,783,104 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 231,698,304 $ 225,397,442 $ 144,377,761 $ 234,508,530 $ 149,437,865 $ 243,892,951 $ 154,568,753 Increased Property Value 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 95% 95% Tax Increment Revenue 951% 959/6 2,867,966 95% 959% 2,986,913 CRA'sTax Bass 214,127,570 137,158,873 1307.194) 222,783,104 141,965,972 231,698,304 146,840,315 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 9, 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,022,545 (1.134.980) 3,285,160 2,093,430 (1.191729) 3,416,623 2,165,307 (1.251.316) J%Change -36 01- 1- Jr Or 24 IFY 2016-17 $ 303,702,944 FY 2016-17 $ 303,702,944 ImpactFY 2017-18 $ 312,814,032 IFY 2017-18 $ 312,814,032 Impact FY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 IFY 2018-19 $ 322,198,453 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value (78,305,502) (20,669,974) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (21,290,073) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (21,928,775) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 204,727,468 $ 234,508,530 $ 213,218,458 $ 243,892,951 $ 221,964,176 Increased Property Value CRA'sTax Bass 95% 214,127,570 95% 194,491,095 95% 222,783,104 95% 202,557,535 95% 231,698,304 95% 210,865,968 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,867,966 (289.559) 3,285,160 2,986,913 1298,246) 3,416,623 3,109,430 1307.194) % Chan .9 9, g� 01- 1- Jr Or 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 v.,,n.,,at n. a.a.. IN— Proposal E - Unallect Blvd. NE 91h Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue Proposal F - Unaffect 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 $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 (31,526,931) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 193,870,511 95% 95% 214,127, 570 184,176, 986 3,157,5251 2,715,874 $ 312,814,032 1 $ 312,814,032 $ 234,508,530 $ 202,035,792 95% 95% 222, 783,104 191, 934, 002 0.014746 9.01474E (441.651) 3,285,160 2,830,259 -14,. $ 322,198,453I $ 322,198,453 (33,446,921 $ 243,692,951 $ 210,446,030 95% 95% 231,698,304 199, 923, 729 0.014746 0.014746 (454.901) 3,416,623 2,948,075 -14,, $ 303,702,944 (78,305,502) $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 (78,305,502) $ 312,814,032 $ 225,397,442 $ 322,198,453 r $ 322,198,453 $ 115,157,095 Tax Roll $ 312,814,032 Reduction of Tax Roll 951/6 (19,052,195) 231, 698, 304 0.014746 214,127,570 0.014746 (19,623,761) 16,623 3,41 222,783,104 (20,212,473) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305.502) 0.014746 3,285,160 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 1 $ 225,397,442 $ 206,345,247 $ 234,508,530 $ 214,884,770 $ 243,892,951 $ 223,680,478 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 214,127,570 196,027,985 222,783,104 204,140,531 231,698,304 212,496,454 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,890,629 (266.896) 3.285,160 3,010,256 (274.903) 3,416,623 3,133,473 (283,150) % Chan -8"' -8^11'1.8– Proposal E - Unallect Blvd. NE 91h Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue Proposal F - Unaffect 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 $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 (31,526,931) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 193,870,511 95% 95% 214,127, 570 184,176, 986 3,157,5251 2,715,874 $ 312,814,032 1 $ 312,814,032 $ 234,508,530 $ 202,035,792 95% 95% 222, 783,104 191, 934, 002 0.014746 9.01474E (441.651) 3,285,160 2,830,259 -14,. $ 322,198,453I $ 322,198,453 (33,446,921 $ 243,692,951 $ 210,446,030 95% 95% 231,698,304 199, 923, 729 0.014746 0.014746 (454.901) 3,416,623 2,948,075 -14,, $ 303,702,944 (78,305,502) $ 303,702,944 (113,668,033) (78,305,502) $ 312,814,032 (78,305,502) $ 312,814,032 (119,351,435) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 111,729,409 $ 234,508,530 $ 115,157,095 95% 951/6 95% 951/6 95% 231, 698, 304 0.014746 214,127,570 0.014746 106,142,938 0,014746 16,623 3,41 222,783,104 109,399,240 3,157,525 1,565,184 (1.592.341) -50": 0.014746 3,285,160 0.014746 1,613,201 It 671.9E -51 1 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,198,453 (125,319,007) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 243,892,951 $ 118,573,944 95% 95% 231, 698, 304 0.014746 112, 645,247 16,623 3,41 0.014746 1,661,067 It SutalraWtId into the public r0cOrd In connection with on Walter Foeman City Clerk -51 25 ;uballitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value r6Wro In connection With 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 Wafter Foeman City Clerk Proposal A -Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site Proposal B-11 TIR $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 Proposal- , $ 352,074,949 , 21-22 $ 352,074,949 Impact Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 331,864,407 Reduction of Tax Roll , (178,426,285) 2020-21 , ,mpact (187,347,599) ,21-22 Proposal , FY 21-22 (196,714,979) Bisc. Blvd. East Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (22,586,638) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (23,264,237) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (23,962,164) $ 253,558,905 $ 75,132,620 $ 263,514,837 $ 76,167,238 $ 273,769,447 $ 77,054,468 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (59,172,107) (78,305,502) Base Property Value 95% 95% $ 159,768,497 95% 95% $ 273,769,447 951/o 95% CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 71,375,989 $ 207,160,450 250,339,095 72,358,876 Increased Property Value 260,080,975 73,201,745 95% Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 240,880,960 0.014746 0.014746 250,339,095 0.014746 0.014746 1 260,080,975 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 1,052,510 2499 520) 3,691,500 1,067,004 2624 496) 3,835,154 1,079,433 27557211 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 3,552,031 0.014746 0.014746 % Chan 70^-. 0.014746 72" Proposal Proposal B-11 TIR Proposal-_ Proposal- - _ FY r r , 2020-21 $ 341,820,339 2020-21 , ,mpact sal B-11 • •-22 FY , 21-22 $ 352,074,949 ,21-22 Proposal , FY 21-22 ct Impact Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll 'II $ ,407 $ 331,864,407 (22,586,638) $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 (23,264,237) $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 (23,962,164) Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value (53,670,845) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (56,354,388) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (59,172,107) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 159,768,497 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 273,769,447 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 $ 199,888,060 $ 263,514,837 $ 207,160,450 $ 273,769,447 $ 214,597,340 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 951/6 95% 240,880,960 959% 95% 250,339,095 951/6 95% 1 260,080,975 CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 189,893,657 0.014746 250,339,095 196,802,427 0.014746 260,080,975 203,867,473 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 3,552,031 0.014746 0.014746 3,691,500 0.014746 0.014746 3,835,154 TaxlncrememRevenue 3.552,031 2,801474 (751,859) 3,691,500 2,902,049 (789.452) 3,835,154 3,006,230 (82122'1, _37°�. .38„i 1% Change -21 -, -21°� Bisc. Blvd. West Site Proposal B-11 TIR Proposal-_ - FY r $ 331,864,407 2020-21 $ 341,820,339 2020-21 $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 , $ 352,074,949 sal B-11 • •-22 FY , 21-22 $ 352,074,949 TIR Impact (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 331,864,407 Reduction of Tax Roll (22,586,638) (93,790,408) (23,264,237) (98,479,929) (23,962,164) (103,403,925) Base Property Value Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 $ 253,558,905 $ 159,768,497 $ 263,514,837 $ 165,034,908 $ 273,769,447 $ 170,365,522 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 151,780,072 250,339,095 250,339,095 156,783,163 260,080,975 1 260,080,975 1 161,847,246 Millage Rate Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 2,238,149 (1.313.882) 3,691,500 2,311,925 (1.379.576) 3,835,154 2,386,599 (1.448.555) 1% Change Chan 37 „ _37°�. .38„i Proposal C - Arena East FY r $ 331,864,407 2020-21 $ 341,820,339 ,21-22 $ 352,074,949 FY Proposal 21-22 $ 352,074,949 Impact Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 341,820,339 Reduction of Tax Roll (22,586,638) (23,264,237) (23,962,164) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 $ 230,972,267 $ 263,514,837 $ 240,250,600 $ 273,769,447 $ 249,807,283 Increased Property Value 95% 959/6 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 3,552,031 3,235,621 (316.40)) 3,691,500 3,365,599 (325.902) 3,835,154 3,499,475 (335.679) 1% Change -gam-. _g�� -g 253 26 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 $ 219,108,576 Proposal . 95 TIR 208,153,147 Proposal D 4.07479E 3,069,426 TI- mpact Proposal 260,080,975 0.014746 225,360,039 (131,584,957) !497.082) 3,835,154 4.414746. 3,323,159 (511.995 (145,072,415) .13^' Tax Roll FY 2019-20 $ 331,864,407 FY 2019-20l $ 331,864,407 $ 341,820,339 2020-21 $ 341,820,339 1 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll $ 121,973,948 (20,818,848) $ 125,350,632 $ 273,769,447 (21,443,413) Increased Property Value (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 260,080,975 122,262,180 Millage Rate 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 240,880,960 221,103,054 843.3341 250,339,095 229,967,853 (1.935.501) 260,080,975 239,098,595 (2.0322761 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 % Chan o•ola7as 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue .5 .031 3,260,386 (291.645) 3,691,500 3,391,106 (300.394) 3,835,154 3,525,748 (309,406) % Change Proposal E - Unarrect Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax increment Revenue Prnnneal F. I1—ff rl Rh.ri $ 331,864,407 1 $ 331,864,407 $ 253,558,905 1 $ 219,108,576 95% 95 240,880,960 0.014746 208,153,147 3,552,031 4.07479E 3,069,426 $ 341,820,339 1 $ 341,820,339 $ 263,514,837 $ 228,030,999 95% 95 250,339,095 216,629,449 0.014746 4.41.4741 (482.604) 3,691,500 3,194,418 -14'- NE 2nd Ave. $ 352,074,949 (78,305,502) $ 352,074,949 (36,548,354) (78,305,502) Impact $ 273,769,447 $ 237,221,094 95% 95% mpact Tax Roll 260,080,975 0.014746 225,360,039 (131,584,957) !497.082) 3,835,154 4.414746. 3,323,159 (511.995 (145,072,415) .13^' .111°- NE 2nd Ave. IFY 2019-20 $ 331,864,407 FY 2019-20 $ 331,864,407$ Impact FY 2020-21W;0212'1 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 , $ 352,074,949 , 21-22 $ 352,074,949 mpact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (131,584,957) (138,164,205) (145,072,415) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 $ 121,973,948 $ 263,514,837 $ 125,350,632 $ 273,769,447 $ 128,697,032 Increased Property Value 959/6 95%95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 115,875,250 250,339,095 119,083,100 260,080,975 122,262,180 Millage Rate Q•014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 1,708,696 843.3341 3,691,500 1,755,999 (1.935.501) 3,835,154 1,802,878 (2.0322761 % Chan -52°= -52',,-53"' Submitted into the public MOM In connection with !fawn on =�J Wafter Foeman City Clerk 01" 253 27 6ubnotted into the public Projected Growth In Overall Assessment Value recofd in connection with Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter rjW _4_ On Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Wafter FOt3(rtan Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Properly Value Increased Property Value CRNs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue $ 362,637,198I $ 362,637,198 (206,550,728' $ 284,331,696 $ 77,780,968 95% 95% (78,305,502) 270,115,111 0.014746 $ 295,210,812 73,891,919 0,014.746 $ 362,637,198 3,983,117 95% 1,089,610 (2.893 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 78,694,124 (216,878,264) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 291,095,486 0,014746 $ 295,210,812 $ 78,332,547 $ 362,637,198 95% 95% 1,102,402 280,450,271 74,415,920 (108,574,121) 0,014746 4,135,520 0,01474fi 1,097,337 3.038 $ 384,721,803I $ 384,721,803 (227,722,178) $ 306,416,301 $ 78,694,124 95% 95% $ 384,721,803 291,095,486 0,014746 74,759,417 0,014744 $ 362,637,198 4,292,494 $ 373,516,314 1,102,402 (3.1 74 (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) $ 373,516,314 $ 384,721,803 2024-25 Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 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 $ 186,713,332 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRXsTax 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 2,462,135 520.9821 4,135,520 2,538,488 597.0311 4,292,494 2,615,611 576.883) % Change 1 -39"11 ole 253 28 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 - Una/lett Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRXs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax increment Revenue Cham. $ 362,637,198 I $ 362,637,198 (37,644,804, $ 284,331,696 $ 246,686,892 $ 384,721,803 (39,937,373) (78,305,502) 95% 95% $ 266,478,928 270,115,111 234,352,547 95% 0.014746 3,983,117 0.014746 3,455,763 (527 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 (38,774,148) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 295,210,812 $ 256,436,663 95% 95% 280,450,271 243,614,830 0,0147461 0,0147as 4,135,520 3,592,344 NE 2nd Ave. $ 384,721,803 (78,305,502) $ 384,721,803 (39,937,373) (78,305,502) $ 306,416,301 $ 266,478,928 95% 95% pactIm Tax Roll 291,095,486 253,154,982 $ 373,516,314 (543. T75) 4.014746 4,292,494 49]47461 3,733,023 (559.471 (159,942,338) -13"' -13° NE 2nd Ave. i2024-25 $ 373,516,314 $ 384,721,803 $ 384,721,803 pactIm Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 Reduction of Tax Roll (152,326,036) (159,942,338) (167,939,465) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 284,331,696 $ 132,005,660 $ 295,210,812 $ 135,268,474 $ 306,416,301 $ 138,476,846 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRXsTax Base 270,115,111 125,405,377 280,450,271 128,505,050 291,095,486 131,553,004 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 1,849,228 (2.133.890) 4,135,520 1,894,935 (2.240-584) 4292,494 1,939,881 2.352.813) % Chan -54'-: -54'=11 -55% Subaliitted into the public record it connection with Own I / yl Waiter Foeman City Clerk Y`• All 0�-- 25-)3 29 Subnjtted into the public Projected Growth In Overall Assessment Value recOnj in connection with 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 i1 �til "—" Walter Foeman Proposal A - Scenario I Fy 2025-26 Proposal A-1 Impact TIR FY 2026-27 ProposalProposal FY 2027-28 $ 420,395,902 FY 2027-28 Impact Tax Roll $ 396,263,457 IFY 2025-26 $ 396,263,457 FY 2025-26 $ 396,263,457 Impact FY 2026-27 $ 408,151,361 FY 2026-27 $ 408,151,361 Impact IFY 2027-28 $ 420,395,902 FY 2027-28 $ 420,395,902 Impact Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (239,108,286) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (251,063,701) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (263,616,886) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 246,033,889 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 342,090,400 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 78,849,669 $ 329,845,859 $ 78,782,158 $ 342,090,400 $ 78,473,514 Increased Property Value 959% 95% 95% 95% 95% 302,060,057 95% 95% 313,353,566 95% 95% 324,985,880 CRXs Tax Base 302,060,057 74,907,185 0.014746 313,353,566 74,843,050 0.014746 324,985,880 74,549,838 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,0147461 4,454,178 Q•014746 0.014746 4,620,712 0.014746 0.014746 4,792,242 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 1,104,581 3.349.5961 4,620,712 1,103,636 3.517 076) 4,792,242 1,099,312 3.692.9301 -23 % -23" - Chan 75'° 76' r7^� wlwprvawu� Bisc. Blvd. East Fy 2025-26 FY 2025-26 Impact FY 2026-27 $ 408,151,361 FY 2026-27 Impact FY 2027-28 $ 420,395,902 FY 2027-28 Impact Tax Roll $ 396,263,457 $ 396,263,457 $ 408,151,361 $ 420,395,902 Reduction of Tax Roll (71,924,066) (75,520,269) (79,296,282) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 246,033,889 $ 329,845,859 $ 254,325,590 $ 342,090,400 $ 262,794,117 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 959% 95% 95% CRNs Tax Base 302,060,057 233,732,195 313,353,566 241,609,310 324,985,880 249,654,411 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 3,446,615 (1.007.563) 4,620,712 3,562,771 (1.052941) 4,792,242 3,681,404 (1.110.838) % Chan -23" -23 % -23" - (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) r2027-28 $ 408,151,361 $ 420,395,902 Impact Tax Roll $ 396,263,457 $ 396,263,457 $ 408,151,361 $ 420,395,902 Reduction of Tax Roll (125,688,117) (131,972,523) (138,571,149) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 192,269,838 $ 329,845,859 $ 197,873,336 $ 342,090,400 $ 203,519,250 Increased Property Value 95% 96% 95*/o 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 Q•014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 2,693,450 1 760727) 4,620,712 2,771,948 (1.848,7631 4,792,242 2,851,040 9a1.202 1% Change -40"' -40 �, -41'% 0 12�3 30 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 NE 9th Street2027-28 $ 396,263,457 (176,336,427) (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 $ 317,957,955 $ 420,395,902 FY 2027-28 $ 420,395,902 Impact Tax Roll $ 396,263,457 $ 396,263,457 $ 408,151,361 Reduction of Tax Roll 324, 985, 880 0.014746 (41,135,494) 134,540,451 4,792,242 (42,369,559) 137,457,980 0.014746 (43,640,646) ���.$ 1,983,933 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 2 593. - (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 276,822,461 $ 329,845,859 $ 287,476,300 $ 342,090,400 $ 298,449,754 Increased Property Value 95% 950/6 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 0.014746 0.014746 Q•014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax incremern Revenge 4,454,178 3,877,923 (576.255) 4,620,712 4,027,189 (593.5421 4,792,242 4,180,893 (611.349) '� Change -13" -13"'. Y41 Proposal F - Unaffect 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 $ 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) $ 317,957,955 $ 141,621,528 $ 329,845,859 $ 144,692,610 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 324, 985, 880 0.014746 302,060, 057 �� 134,540,451 4,792,242 313,353, 566 137,457,980 0.014746 4,454,178 ���.$ 1,983,933 2 470.2441 -55` �� 4,620,712 2,026,955 2 593. - $ 420,395,902 $ 420,395,902 (194,410,911) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 342,090,400 $ 147,679,488 95% 95% 324, 985, 880 0.014746 140, 295, 514 0.014746 4,792,242 2,068,798 2. Subalitted into the public 1!9111 record I cOr3on@'Ctin with __1_1 / G Walter Foeman n City Clerk 01— 253 31 Submitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value record in conne!=) h Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter ilem �_ on Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Walter Foeman Ci Clerk Proposal A - Scenario 1 Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2028-292030-31 $ 433,007,779 TIR $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 $ 459,377,953 Proposal Tax Roll $ 433,007,779 Reduction of Tax Roll (276,797,730) 2029-30 (290,637,617) . -11 �r-31 Impact (305,169,497) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 354,702,277 $ 77,904,547 $ 367,692,510 $ 77,054,894 $ 381,072,451 $ 75,902,953 Increased Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% 95% (78,305,502) 95% 95% $ 354,702,277 95% 95% $ 214,917,818 CiRA•s Tax Base 336,967,163 74,009,319 349,307,885 73,202,149 3621018,828 72,107,805 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 95% 0.014746 0.014746 CRNsTax Base 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 1,091,341 (3,877576) 5,150,894 1,079,439 (4.071 455) 5,338,330 1,063,302 4275.028) 0,014746 0•014746 0.014746 0.014746 % Chan -78"!-11-79° 2,930,656 -80°% Bisc. Blvd, West Site FY 2028-29 $ 433,007,779 Proposal B41 TIR $ 445,998,012 Proposal B41 TIR 2030-31 Proposal Tax Roll TIR Reduction of Tax Roll 2029-30 $ 445,998,012 2029-30 2030-31 $ 459,377,953 . -11 �r-31 Impact (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (145,499,707) $ 354,702,277 (152,774,692) $ 367,692,510 $ 337,337,957 (160,413,427) $ 349,807,261 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 951/6 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 95% $ 354,702,277 $ 209,202,570 $ 367,692,510 $ 214,917,818 $ 381,072,451 $ 220,659,024 Increased Property Value 349,307,885 320,471,059 95% 95% 95*/o 95% 0.014746 95% 95% 0.0147460.014746 CRNsTax Base 336,967,163 198,742,441 349,307,885 204,171,927 4,556,075 362,018,828 209,626,073 4,725,666 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 (437,985) 0,014746 0•014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 2,930,656 (2.038.262) 5.150,894 3,010,719 (2.ta0.r75) 5,338,330 3,091,146 2.247.184) % Chan -41 °� -42°� 42°! Proposal C - Arena Fast I I..... ' r 01 32 FY 2028-29 $ 433,007,779 FY r $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 2030-31 Tax Roll $ 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) $ 354,702,277 $ 325,231,837 $ 367,692,510 $ 337,337,957 $ 381,072,451 $ 349,807,261 Increased Property Value 95% 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 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 0.0147460.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 4,556,075 (412.8431 5,150,894 4,725,666 425.228) 5,338,330 4,900,345 (437,985) % Chan -81, _811. _gam; 01 32 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 - Unattecf Blvd, NE 9th Streef Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRXs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue r.h.— Proposal F- Unatrecf 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 % Chance $ 433,007,779 1 $ 433,007,779 $ 354,702,277 FY . $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 95% 2029-30 $ 445,998,012 95 336,967,163 $ 459,377,953 (225,054,931) (78,305,502) 2030-31 2030-31 $ 459,377,953 $ 150,570,820 Tax Roll $ 445,998,012 $ 381,072,451 $ 459,377,953 Reduction of Tax Roll 95*/6 (27,163,874) 95% 95% (27,978,790) 95% 959/6 (28,818,154) 336,967,163 4.414245 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 145,686,756 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 148,216,643 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) 2,109,301 $ 354,702,277 $ 327,538,403 $ 367,692,510 $ 339,713,720 $ 381,072,451 $ 352,254,297 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRXs Tax Base 336,967,163 311,161,483 349,307,885 322,728,034 362,018,828 334,641,582 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 4,588,387 (380.5311 5,150,894 4,758,948 x391 946) 5,338,330 4,934,625 (403.705) % Change Proposal E - Unattecf Blvd, NE 9th Streef Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRXs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue r.h.— Proposal F- Unatrecf 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 % Chance $ 433,007,779 1 $ 433,007,779 $ 354,702,277 $ 309,752,412 95% $ 445,998,012 (214,338,030) (78,305,502) 95 336,967,163 $ 459,377,953 (225,054,931) (78,305,502) 294,264,791 4914746 4,968,918 $ 150,570,820 9914746 4,339,229 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 (46,298,361) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 367,692,510 $ 321,394,149 95% 95% 349,307,885 305,324,442 4914746 0,014.746 (629.6891 5,150894 4,502,314 13 $ 459,377,953I $ 459,377,953 (47,687,312 $ 381,072,451 $ 333,385,139 95% 95% 362,018,828 316,715,882 0.014746 0,014746 580) 5.338,330 4,670,292 (668.037 13- -13^ $ 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) (78,305,502) $ 459,377,953 (78,305,502) $ 459,377,953 (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*/6 95% 95% 95% 959/6 336,967,163 4.414245 143,042,279 9979145 349,307,885 145,686,756 362,018,828 148,216,643 4,968,918 2,109,301 (2.859.616) .Sg� 9414245 5,150,894 4.914745 2,148,297 3.002.597) . 9914745 5,338,330 4914746 2,185,603 3.152. Submitted into the public MOM In connection with Walter Foeman City Clerk "� Y�r 33 Submitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Valuerecord in connection WI h 1 �_on /� pj 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 Walter FOeman City Clerk Proposal A - Scenario 1 Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2031-32,31-32 $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 Impact FY 2032,33 $ 487,354,070 FY 2032-33,2033-34 $ 487,354,070 Impact $ 501,974,692 $ 501,974,692 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 (320,427,972) (32,203,145) (336,449,371) Reduction of Tax Roll (353,271,839) (34,164,317) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (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 $ 298,468,662 $ 409,048,568 $ 307,844,185 $ 423,669,190 95% 95% 95*/o 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 70,704,526 959/6 388,596,139 68,969,237 CRA's Tax Base 402,485,730 66,877,483 370,029,629 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 402,485,730 0.014746 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 1,042,609 4.4.48779) 5,730,239 1,017,020 (4713.218) 5,935,055 986,175 (4.948.879) 5,730,239 4,312,497 ((.417742) 5,935,055 4,446,426 ((488.629) I%Change 81 "" -82' -83', Prn al R_I TIG G. !=* Bisc. Blvd. East FY 2031-32I $ 473,159,291 $ 487,354,070 , $ 487,354,070 Impact FY 2033-34 $ 501,974,692 ,2033-34 $ 501,974,692 Impact impact Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 (32,203,145) $ 501,974,692 Reduction of Tax Roll (96,385,127) (34,164,317) Base Property Value (101,204,383) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (106,264,602) (78,305,502) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 409,048,568 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 237,970,597 $ 394,853,789 $ 298,468,662 $ 409,048,568 $ 307,844,185 $ 423,669,190 $ 317,404,587 Increased Property Value 95*/o 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 215,098,706 959/6 95% 220,583,127 CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 283,545,229 370,029,629 388,596,139 292,451,975 Q.01474fi 402,485,730 301,534,358 0.014746 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 3,171,846 0.014746 0.014746 3252,719 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,368 4,181,158 n 350.230) 5,730,239 4,312,497 ((.417742) 5,935,055 4,446,426 ((488.629) 1% Change -43" -43'' 44". .8"; % Chan -24 -25'-, -25' Prnnnaal RJI TIG Gr -1 G_n TIG I (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) FY 2031-32, $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 , $ 487,354,070 ,32-33 $ 487,354,070 Impact FY 2033-34 $ 501,974,692 FY 2033-34 $ 501,974,692 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (168,434,098) (32,203,145) (176,855,803) (33,169,240) (185,698,593) (34,164,317) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 226,419,691 $ 409,048,568 $ 232,192,765 $ 423,669,190 $ 237,970,597 Increased Property Value Increased Property Value 959% 95% 95*/o 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 215,098,706 344,518,112 388,596,139 220,583,127 357,085,362 402,485,730 226,072,067 370,029,629 Millage Rate 0,014746 Q.01474fi 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 3,171,846 2.359.543) 5,730,239 3252,719 2.477.520) 5,935,055 3.333,659 2.601.396) (478.598) 1% Change -43" -43'' 44". Proposal C - At East �- 2;"-j3 34 FY 1 $ 473,159,291 I 1 $ 487,354,070 I $ 487,354,070 12033-34 $ 501,974,692 $ 501,974,692 Impact Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 Reduction of Tax Roll (32,203,145) (33,169,240) (34,164,317) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 362,650,644 $ 409,048,568 $ 375,879,328 $ 423,669,190 $ 389,504,873 Increased Property Value 95% 95*/o 959% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 344,518,112 388,596,139 357,085,362 402,485,730 370,029,629 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 5,080,264 I 1451.124) 5,730,239 5,265,581 (464.658) 5,935,055 5,456,457 (478.598) % Change 8.,. -8` .8"; �- 2;"-j3 34 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 NE 9th Street2033-34 FY 2031-32 1, $ 473,159,291 FY 2031-32 $ 473,159,291 Impact FY 2032-33 $ 487,354,070 FY 2032-33 Impact IFY 2033-34 $ 501,974,692 FY 2033-34 impact Tax Roll $ 487,354,070 $ 501,974,892 Reduction of Tax Roll -61 (29,682,699) 150,618,806 0.014746 (30,573,180) 2,221,025 3.310. (31,490,375) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 365,171,091 $ 409,048,568 $ 378,475,388 $ 423,669,190 $ 392,178,815 Increased Property Value 951/6 951/6 951/6 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 375,111,100 346,912,536 388,596,139 359,551,619 402,485,730 372,569,874 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 5,115,572 (415.816) 5,730,239 5,301,948 428.2911 5,935,055 5,493,915 1441.139) % Change -12.. -12` 7^ NE 9th Street2033-34 $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 95% $ 487,354,070 (78,305,502) $ 501,974,692 FY 2033-34 $ 501,974,692 Impact Tax Roll $ 487,354,070 95% Reduction of Tax Roll -61 (49,117,931) 150,618,806 0.014746 (50,591,469) 2,221,025 3.310. (52,109,213) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 345,735,858 $ 409,048,568 $ 358,457,099 $ 423,669,190 $ 371,559,977 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 328,449,065 388,596,139 340,534,244 402,485,730 352,981,978 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.0147460.014746 0.014746 Tax i�c,emem RevelUe 5,531,388 4,843,310 (688.078) 5,730,239 5,021,518 (708.7211 5,935,055 5,205,072 (729.982) Change -12.. -12` -12^' Proposal F - Unaffecr 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 % Chance $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 95% (236,307,678) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 158,546,111 (3.649.67 95% 95% -61 375,111,100 0.014746 150,618,806 0.014746 5,531,388 2,221,025 3.310. $ 487,354,070I $ 487,354,070 (248,123,062) $ 409,048,568 $ 160,925,506 95% 95% 388, 596,139 152, 879, 2 31 0.014746 0.014746 5.730,239 2,254,357 (3.475.88 -61 $ 501,974,692I $ 501,974,692 (260,529,215 $ 423,669,190 $ 163,139,975 95% 95% 402, 485, 730 0.014746 154, 982, 976 0.014746 5,935,055 2,285,379 (3.649.67 -61 Sub'Mtted into the public record in connection with 1 on —ZZ-I:f1sr) Walter Foeman City Cleric V 2 5 3 4 35 ' Subadned into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value record in (connection with Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter il"t3li1 on Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Walter FOeman tv Clerk Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2034-35 $ 517,033,933 TIR , $ 532,544,951 , $ 532,544,951 TIR , 2036-37 $ 548,521,299 Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 $ 548,521,299 Reduction of Tax Roll r2036-37 $ 532,544,951 (370,935,431) $ 548,521,299 , , ,saIC $ 548,521,299 (389,482,203) Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 (408,956,313) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (36,244,924) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (37,332,271) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 67,792,999 $ 454,239,449 $ 64,757,246 $ 470,215,797 $ 61,259,484 Increased Property Value $ 438,728,431 $ 403,539,184 $ 454,239,449 951/6 95% $ 432,883,526 95% 951/6 959/6 95% 951% CRXs Tax Base 416,792,009 64,403,349 951/6 431,527,476 61,519,383 95% 446,705,007 58,196,510 416,792,009 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 397,094,799 Q•014746 0.014746 411,239,349 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 949,692 (5.196.3231 6,363,304 907,165 (5.456.139) 6,587,112 858,166 (5728.946) 5,653,059 492.956) 6,363,304 5,855,560 5o774a) 6,587,112 Chan -85. Proposal C - Arena East FY 2034-35 Proposal C TIR ProposaIC TIR _ FY 2034-35 $ 517,033,933 Impact FY i $ 532,544,951 r2036-37 $ 532,544,951 $ 548,521,299 , , ,saIC $ 548,521,299 Impact Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 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 951% 95% 95 % 951/6 95% 95% CRXs Tax Base 416,792,009 383,362,225 431,527,476 397,094,799 446,705,007 411,239,349 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 5,653,059 492.956) 6,363,304 5,855,560 5o774a) 6,587,112 6,064,135 5229771 % Chan -8- 8^' -g^, t tGof 2 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 I FY 2034-35 $ 517,033,933 FY 2034-35 $ 517,033,933 Impact , $ 532,544,951 FY 2035-36 $ 532,544,951 FY 2035-36 $ 532,544,951 Impact FY 2036-37 $ 548,521,299 FY 2036-37 $ 548,521,299 Impact Tax Roll 95% Reduction of Tax Roll (32,435,086) 156, 914,117 (33,408,139) 9,014746 2,313,856 3 832 (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% 951/6 95% CRNsTax Bass 416,792,009 385,978,677 431,527,476 399,789,744 446,705,007 414,015,144 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,.014746 0.014746 0,.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 5.691,642 (454 373) 6,363,304 5,895,300 (468.005) 6,587,112 6,105,067 482 0451 % Chan -7^- 7"�", -12" NE 9th Street FY 2034-35, $ 517,033,933 , $ 532,544,951 , $ 532,544,951 mpactFY 2036-37 $ 548,521,299 FY . -37 $ 548,521,299 mpact Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 95% Reduction of Tax Roll (53,672,489) 156, 914,117 (55,282,664) 9,014746 2,313,856 3 832 (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 959/6 959% 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 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax increment Revenue 6,146,015 5,394,133 (751.882) 6,363,304 5,588,866 (774.438) 6,587,112 5,789,441 (797.671) "% Change -12"' -12"1 -12" Proposal F - Unaffect 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 $ 517,033,933 $ 517,033,933 (273,555,675) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 165,172,755 95% 95% 416, 792, 009 0.014746 156, 914,117 6,146,015 9,014746 2,313,856 3 832 $ 532,544,951 $ 532,544,951 (287,233,459) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 454,239,449 $ 167,005,989 95% 95% 431,527,476 0,0147461 158, 655, 690 6,363,304 901473¢ 2,339,537 1 (4.023. $ 548,521,299 $ 548,521,299 (301,595,132) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 470,215,797 $ 168,620,665 95% 95% "6.705,007 0.014746 160,189, 632 6,587,112 9•01. 2,362,156 1 14 Sub'jtted into the public record in connection with 1[eR► on =2,L' j Walter Foeman City Cleric 01- 37 Submitted into the public Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value record in connecctii/onn /w'ith Overall AssessmItnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter m __�.___ On ,_1[.r:,t1s[{� Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Wetter Foeman Proposal A - Scenario 1 $ 564,976,938 Proposal"' $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 Tax Roll Impact $ 599,384,034 (237,003,691) FY impact Bisc. Blvd. East Site IFY 2037-38' $ 564,976,938 (78,305,502) $ 564,976,938$ (429,404,129) (78,305,502) (386,746,552) IFY ' 38,39 581,926,246 (78,305,502) FY 2038-39 $ 581,926,246 (450,874,335) (78,305,502) FY 2039-40 $ 599,384,034 (78,305,502) 2039-40 $ 599,384,034 (473,418,052) (78,305,502) 1 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value $ 486,671,436 95% $ 57,267,307 95% $ 503,620,744 951% $ 52,746,409 95% $ 521,078,532 959/6 Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base $ 486,671,436 $ 47,660,480 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 54,403,942 4914746 4.914746 478,439,707 50,109,089 9,014746 0.014746 495,024,605 45,277,456 Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue 0.014746 6,817,634 0.014746 802,241 (6.015.394) 0.014746 7,055,072 4914746 738,909 (6.316.163)7,299.633 462,337,864 667,661 (6.631.9711 1 7,299,633 6,728,162 478,439,707 111,030,482 0.014746 _ 495,024,605 0.014746 %Cha -88'" -90" 1 .91'. Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millaye Rate Tax Increment Revenue $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 ' 38-39 FY 2038-39 $ 561,926,246 $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 Tax Roll $ 599,384,034 $ 599,384,034 (237,003,691) (135,623,553) (368,330,050) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (386,746,552) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (406,083,880) $ 486,671,436 $ 357,506148 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 521,078,532 $ 378,673,801 (78,305,502) (76,305,502) 95% 95% (78,305,502) (78,305,502) CRA's Tax Base $ 486,671,436 $ 118,341,386 478,439,707 349,597,332 $ 503,620,744 $ 116,874,192 4914746 4.914746 $ 521,078,532 $ 114,994,652 9,014746 0.014746 95*/o 95% 0.809.438) 95% 95% % Chan 95% 95 -, 462,337,864 112,424,317 7,299,633 6,728,162 478,439,707 111,030,482 0.014746 -8" 495,024,605 0.014746 109,244,919 4.414Z9fi 99ta7as 6,817,634 4914746 1,657,809 (5.159.825) 0.014746 7,055,072 1,637,255 (5.417.816)11 7,299,633 1,610,926 (5.688.707 Proposal B Bisc. Blvd. East i Proposal FY 2D37-38 ' $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 ' 38-39 FY 2038-39 $ 561,926,246 $ 581,926,246 ' 38-39 IFY 2038-39 Impact $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 FY 2039-40 FY 2039-40 Impact $ 599,384,034 $ 599,384,034 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (129,165,288) (237,003,691) (135,623,553) (142,404,731) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78 305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 486,671,436 $ 357,506148 $ 503,620,744 $ 266,617,054 $ 503,620,744 $ 367,997,191 $ 521,078,532 $ 378,673,801 $ 503,620,744 $ 464,014,938 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 339,630,840 478,439,707 253,286,201 478,439,707 349,597,332 495,024,605 359,740,111 Millage Rate 4914746 4.914746 4414246 0,014 ¢ 0.014746 0,014746 9,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 5,008,196 0.809.438) 7,055,072 5,155,162 r 1.899.9101 7,299,633 5,304,728 r 1.994.905) % Chan -46`. -27 . -, -27^' Bisc. Blvd. West SiteProposal (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) - ' ' $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 ' 38-39 FY 2038-39 $ 561,926,246 $ 581,926,246 Impact IFY 2039-40 $ 599,384,034 IFY 2039-40 impact $ 599,354,034 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (225,717,801) (237,003,691) (39,605,807) (248,853,875) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78 305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 486,671,436 $ 260,953,636 $ 503,620,744 $ 266,617,054 $ 521,078,532 $ 272,224,657 $ 503,620,744 $ 464,014,938 95% 959% 95% 95% 95% 951/6 CRXs Tax Base 462,337,864 247,905,954 478,439,707 253,286,201 495,024,605 258.613,424 Millage Rate 4914746 4,4147 4414246 0,014 ¢ 9914246 0,01474¢ Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 3,655,621 (3.162,013) 7,055,072 3,734,958 (3.320.114) 7,299,633 3,813,514 (3.486.119) %Change -46`. Tax Increment Revenue -47', -W Proposal C - Arena East FY 2037-38 FY 2037-38 Impact $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 IFY 2038-39 FY 2038-39 $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 Impact IFY 2039-40 FY 2039-40 $ 599,384,034 $ 599,384,034 Impact Tax Roll 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) Increased Property Value $ 486,671,436 $ 448,219,197 $ 503,620,744 $ 464,014,938 $ 521,078,532 $ 480,284,551 951% 95% 95% 951/6 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 425,808,237 478,439,707 440,814,191 495,024,605 456,270,323 Mitlape Rate 4914246 4.914746 4914746 4919746 49]9746 99]4746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 6,278,968 1538.666) 7,055,072 6,500,246 554.8261 7,299,633 6,728,162 5714711 % Chan -8" -8, 8 `. 01— 25 2 38 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 $ 428,022,058 Proposal . 95 % TIR 421,051,290 Proposal . 406,620,955 TIR 0.014746 6,817,634 Proposal (821 435,914,536 $ 521,078,532 250) 0.014746 7,299,633 0.014746 6,427,996 871.E 95% 95% 12^, Tax Roll FY 2037-38 $ 564,976,938 IFY 2037-38 $ 564,976,938 Impact IFY 2038-39 $ 581,926,246 FY 2038-39 $ 561,926,246 Impact FY -, $ 599,384,034 FY , t $ 599,384,034 Impact Reduction of Tax Roll (35,442,694) 2,381,431 4.436.2041 (36,505,975) 0,014746 2,397,058 1 (4.658.014) (37,601,155) 0,014.746 2,408,718 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) -65': $ 486,671,436 $ 451,228,742 $ 503,620,744 $ 467,114,769 $ 521,078,532 $ 483,477,377 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 428,667,305 478,439,707 443,759,031 495,024,605 459,303,508 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 6,321,128 496.5061 7,001474 6,543,671 1511.4011 7,299,633 6,772,890 526.743) % Chan 7,- 7' -7„ Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millaye Rate Tax Increment Revenue Chanoe Proposal F - Unaffect Blvd NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millape Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Chancre $ 564,976,938 1 $ 564,976,938 $ 486,671,436 $ 428,022,058 95% 95 % 95% 421,051,290 462,337,864 406,620,955 95% 0.014746 6,817,634 0.414746 5,996,033 (821 $ 581,926,246I $ 581,926,246 (60,408,860) $ 503,620,744 1 $ 443,211,885 95% 959A 478,439,707 0,014746 421,051,290 7,055,072 4,ota7as 6,208,822 $ 564,976,938 (78,305,502) $ 599,384,034 (78,305,502) $ 599,384,034 (62,221,126) (78,305,502) $ 581,926,246 (78,305,502) $ 521,078,532 $ 458,857,406 $ 599,884,034 (78,305,502) 95% 95% $ 486,671,436 $ 169,996,547 495,024,605 435,914,536 $ 521,078,532 250) 0.014746 7,299,633 0.014746 6,427,996 871.E 95% 95% 12^, 1 $ 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) $ 599,884,034 (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 $ 171,944,467 951/6 95% 95% 95% 955/6 95% 462,337,864 4.414746 161,496,720 0.01474fi 478,439,707 0,0147461 162,556,505 495,024,605 163,347,243 6,817,634 2,381,431 4.436.2041 .. 7,055,072 1 0,014746 2,397,058 1 (4.658.014) 4014246 7,299,633 0,014.746 2,408,718 4.890.91 -65': .FF", c - Submitted into the public record in conne to i with Kem on /5 cd Walter Foeman City Clerk 01- 39 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 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 Bisc. Blvd. west Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Chanoa 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 $ 617,365,555 $ 617,365,555 (497,088,955) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 41,971,098 951/6 95% 512,107,050 0,014746 39,872,543 7,551,531 0, 87,741 587,961 6.963.5 $ 617,365,555 $ 617,365,555 (426,388,074) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 112,671,979 95% 95% 512 ,107, 050 107, 038, 380 4,o1a7as 7, 551,531 4914796 1,578,388 5.973.1 $ 617,365,555 1 $ 617,365,555 $ 539,060,053 $ 389,535,086 95% 95% 512,107,050 370,058,331 0,014746 0,014746 7,551,531 5,456,880 (2.094 $ 617,365,555 1 $ 617,365,555 $ 539,060,053 $ 277,763,484 95% 95% 512,107,050 263,875,310 4914746 0,014746 7,551,531 3,891,105 (3.660.4 -4 $ 617,365,555I $ 617,365,555 (42,017,800 $ 539,060,053 $ 497,042,252 95% 95% ubmitted into the public 512,107,050 472,190,140 Ireoac'd In connection with 0.014746 0.014746 7,551,531 6,962,9116 (588.615) e Waiter Foeman 01- City Cleric 40 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 E - Una/Iect RIM NE 9th Street r�r $ 617,365,555 r�r $ 617,365,555 Tax Roll Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll (64,087,759) (38,729,189) Base Property Value Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 539,060,053 $ 500,330,864 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base CRA's Tax Base 512,107,050 475,314,320 Millage Rate Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 Tax increment Revenue Tax Increment Revenue 7,551,531 7,008,985 (542.546) °� Change % Change Proposal E - Una/Iect RIM NE 9th Street $ 617,365,555 040 . Tax Roll $ 617,365,555 Reduction of Tax Roll (64,087,759) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 474,972,293 Increased Property Value 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107,050 451,223,679 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 Tax increment Revenue 7,551,531 6,653,744 (897.786) °� Change .12^1 11 Proposal F - Unallect Blvd. NE 2nd Ave. r • $ 617,365,555 t • , Tax Roll $ 617,365,555 Reduction of Tax Roll (366,590,768) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 172,469,285 Increased Property Value 959A 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 15.)35,460) Chan -68"' Submitted into the public record in connection with i on 3z/,q—/r, I Walter Foeman City Cleric of " 253 41 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 II. Sabnjatted into IN; public raccrd on cess 6 wth Ms�n 1 on 3�I watw Foeman City Clerk 200 rY 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. Z. zlrq 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 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 any 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 anv 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 Subp-atted ime j?UAc record in es, n?nv---.tion wrfth Me,R, on aZ!5 ls� 2 _ Wafter Foernan I City Clerk 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 developmerttordet-As limited to the site of the arena itself. We believe that it is possible to persuade the Department of Community 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 251000 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 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. We look forward to providing you further counsel and advise as you proceed through this process. SubarItted rntc Wi P. public record it cc nnet. I n %Ith IWn -- on Walter Foernan pity Clerk Exhibit "A" Increment II Development Order SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/ PARK WEST 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: 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: 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: Subreitted ifltc tht3 prIblic record incc}.- 4b ” ,;�>��v�,k�� with hen ► on .-VJ-V� Waiter Foeman 1 City Clerk 01- 203 Increment I Increment II Increment III Buildout- Buildout- Buildout - Land uses (1988-1997) (199 ,2 1999) 1999-2007 Totals (1992-2004 Office (gsfl- 166,000 337„000 500,500 1,003,500 Commercial (g4 95,400 71,700 90,600 257,700 Hotel (rooms) 0 500 600 1,100 idential lits) 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: 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: Subreitted ifltc tht3 prIblic record incc}.- 4b ” ,;�>��v�,k�� with hen ► on .-VJ-V� Waiter Foeman 1 City Clerk 01- 203 12. Establish the termination date for completing development as Deeember3'1, 1999, November 30, 2004, provided that thexapplicant, 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. 2 Subalitked into the public record in connection with on Walter Foernan City Clerk Composite Exhibit "B" Master Development Order - Resolution #88-110 February 11, 1988 Increment I Development Order - Amendment to Increment I DO Amendment to Increment I DO Increment II Development Order - Increment H Development Order - 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 25,1993 Submitted into the public record in connection with on 3ZL4�L�j Walter Foeman city cleric Baseball Stadium DRI Options Submitted int© the public record 17 connectio with Items on 3 1 Matter Foeman 203 City Clerk DRI Options Recommendation 1. City does all necessary adjustmentsy Denial and conversion of credits within existing Downtown DRI in order to accommodate the Baseball Stadium. 2. Baseball Stadium obtains its own Approval individual DRI (as in individual project). 3. The Baseball Stadium project waits Approval until Increment II of the Downtown DRI is in place (so that the necessary credits can be included). 4. The City negotiates with the State Approval 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 Approval 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). Submitted int© the public record 17 connectio with Items on 3 1 Matter Foeman 203 City Clerk t Baseball Stadium Approximate Timelines * NOTE: These sites require street closures and replatting which takes approximately 7 to 9 months, but can run concurrently with other zoning applications. In 0 cc c Cr W, 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 Community Affairs Community Affairs Community Affairs MUSP 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 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. * NOTE: These sites require street closures and replatting which takes approximately 7 to 9 months, but can run concurrently with other zoning applications. In 0 cc c Cr W, 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 we 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. Sub"" iMO thO public A'ecord innP�e`lCyn �rit11 —�_ on � 12 Wafter Foeeman Cite GOO BERCOW & RADELL, P.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Alejandro Villarello, City,Attrney FROM: Jeffrey Berk and Ben Fernandez SUBJECT: Status of Southeast Overtown/Park West D.RI DATE: July 27, 2000 CC: Ms. Ana Gelabert, Ms. Lour ues 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 1 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 (units) 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 SU bsalitt9d ins 'ihe public f izIM-1r ,jiy Clerk land uses as changed do not exceed the dverse regional impacts of the project, as originally approved, as measured by ' ;,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 invasive exotic plants. F] Development to remove all Subfttted into the public record in connection with truer 1 on �3s11.�—LL Wafter Forman City Cleric X03 Done - See Section 14-181(8). 6. Direct the City Manager to estabiish 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 1.9-1. 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 15th. 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. Subaalt'ted into the public record in connection with 11em on'31/ S' U 1 3 Wafter poernan City Cieik 01- 253 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. 10th Street. Done. 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 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 SuJbrnitted into the public record in connection with 4 ''i!+r m j on �5& C /,,L Walter l=oeman 0iiY Clerk area that are granted an exemption by the Planning _rector 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. Done. 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: Submitted sPto the public rec.•orri In ccs Inection with on o Waiter Foeman City Clerk 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 lI Development Order started the increment in advance of the original 1994 commencement date, and amended the proposed uses originally anticipated in the Master DO, to approve the following land uses: Sulx"ted intO the public record In connection With 6 ---L_.._ on z1x4,, Wafer i-oerrgan Citlr Clerk Original Amended Master D.O. Land Uses Increment I Increment I (1988-1992) (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 lI Development Order started the increment in advance of the original 1994 commencement date, and amended the proposed uses originally anticipated in the Master DO, to approve the following land uses: Sulx"ted intO the public record In connection With 6 ---L_.._ on z1x4,, Wafer i-oerrgan Citlr Clerk Original Land Uses Approved Master D.O. Increment Il 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. 1st Avenue from N.W. 10th Street to N.W. 14th 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. SubWtte>d WO the public lg� co"^r,pc0on with �4 1- G record 7 Walter Foeman City Clerk 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. 5th 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. SubrMtted Into the public record 1p conniIA�91 on �tlore with I ZZ G Wafter Foeman 8 City Cleric 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 Biscayne View Apts. - Arena Towers Poinciana Village Condos. St. John's Apts. Total Units Retail 9w Street Mall Retail space Office Citadel Office Building Number of Units -� 463 354 40 35 892 Gross Square Feet 18,000 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) Sub"V"Od lit® the public record in cern lOction with 1twn --.L_ can 9 Water Foeman OtY Clerk Hotel 0 0 0 (rooms) Residential 2,000 892 1,108 (dwelling units) Attractions 8,000 0 8,000 (seats) Issues and Analis. 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 1St Avenue, from NW 10th 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" _ Staba tied into the public 10 record in connection with Walter Foeman • City Clerk 0 .t( — C)~' 0;;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 (RADA). 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. SubW ted lntc th9 public mrd in corneMon with on,�/ Walter Foeman City Clerk 01— 213 , 0 MARLINS BALL PARK ALTERNATE PARK WEST LOCATION OPTION Prepares! for: City ®f Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) April , 2000 Prepared by: BERMELLO AJAMIL & PARTNERS INC. a� Bf� #Q �'!� public Archltecturo Engineoring Planning Landaeapo Archltecturo lntorlor De record in connection with Waiter Foemana City Aeric Of- 2 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................... I-1 METHODOLOGY......................................................... I-1 ANALYSIS AND SITE IDENTIFICATION ................................... I-2 I. Marlins Ball Park Facility Site Development Requirements .................... I-2 H. 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 Subatitted into the public recotd In coon ZIh lism TS'/a Walter Fceman City Clerk 0 — 2 5- 3 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 1000 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, Ajamil and Partners Subfl$ed into the public rac;prd in connection i can Walter Foeman Citta Clerk 01— 253 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 ANALYSIS AND SITE IDENTIFICATION I. Marlins Ball Park Facility Site Development Requirements The Marlins Ball Park Facility site development requirements were derived from the 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 such an undertaking which would put an economically unbearable load on project financing. From these drawings and our conversations with the Florida Marlins and their consultant firms we identified the following requirements: 0 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 garage was established by the Florida Marlins as needed for the Ball Park and as indicated ', in the original drawings. The 15.6 acres define a general foot print for the facility, the I parking, and a minimal amount of open space surrounding the proposed buildings. A series 0 of footprints of similar ball parks through out the U.S. were provided by Urban Design P Associates and are included with this report. 2) Facility Associated Open Spaces and Pedestrian Access.- Needs such as entrance plaza i and perimeter pedestrian circulation were not included in the calculations for required site i 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 t_ spaces. 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. Subf tted into the public record in connection with hmn ._.I on Walter Foeman City Clerk Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-2 D1=9` eR- SI o,oa0 4F S. & A-mS BALTiMO2e. (m /ERMELLO AJAMIL i PAR NERD INC. CI74GIN ATI Tl41coc SF IT& Acrts MI HLAFo%.15 811,000 SF 20. Ac *m5 CI_eVEL4N[ 140, 000 sF t1-0 AC4t5 PITTSil1RGi� '� G7t,C�oo SF IS. Jr A�.res CITY OF MIAMI MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN PRELAff Y ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS EVALUATION SAW rRMJGSCO (os p�000 Submitted into the public record In connection With on Walter Foeman 25 r Clerk SAMPLE BALL PARK DIMENSIONS Courtesy of Urban Design Associates r 1 F 1 1 1 / 1 1 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option H. Park West Redevelopment Area Site Development Constraints April 2000 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 of Miami 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. 11 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. Subr fitted into the public record In connection with Own_1 _ on Walter I=oernan City Clerk Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-4 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location C 7 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 ofthe rail line is not sufficient in 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. ISI 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' Street, and N. E. 131 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. 21 Avenue open is a development constraint in Park West. N. E. (W.) e 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. 71 Avenue, an important north south avenue. It is important to maintain N.8th St. open to allow traffic to flow in the west dnd east directions on a daily basis and during functions. Subrnitted into the public rewrd in connection with Ilam on,� s/d/ Walter Foeman City Clerk Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 0 1 .:. 1-6 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location 'on III. Potential Sites Identification April 2000 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. 10`, St. on the south, N. W. I' 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 to be used outside of the ball park "campiis" in to construct the parking structure. Sub"gtted into the public reCord in connectlon with on 3Z-1ZLvl Walter Foeman C , r City Clerk Bermello, Ajamil and Partners ,;, i� 1-7 AEML P110TWMPH + Ste` i �C E N TENN] 8ALL P,ARk� CITY OF ML4M MARLINS RAU PARK DOWNTOWN N.W. 10th ST. PRELBUILARY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS EVALUA`VON ENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES MLV&. FMRMA .. .. ...... 20 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location C Miami Arena Site April 2000 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 6' 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 61 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 park - 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 v = process it was established that elevating the ball park would put a substantial penalty == U on construction costs. Additionally, bringing a railroad under the facility would C. i require that it be elevated even more to allow the minimum 17 feet clear access under U the structure for the rail car. 5) Closing of Miami Avenue - To create a site incorporating the Miami Arena would t, 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. U3 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. Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-9 E,3 C E N TE X N-Ikt \1_1 :13ALL PARK 51 T E Submitted into the on —.AZLIL�' Wafter Foeman CITY OF MIAM MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN MIAMI ARENA SITE 11) PRELMNARY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS EVIUATTON, POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES WAK FLORMA ......... ... .. r Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location in IN. Park West Site April 2000 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. 1st 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 ballpark's footprint to be accommodated. The 640' width from r.o.w. to no.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. l" Avenue must begin at the north edge of the railroad right of way requiring the condemnation of land parcels at N. W. 7th St and N. W. 8t" St. as shown on the drawing Park West Site. N.E. I"Avenue would then bend back after N. E. 9th 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. V Avenue. The 9`i' 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. 10' 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 v Department formulated the costs analysis for both sites. This information is not _0 Z ; E V CL included as part of this report. c 2:. U 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' no.w. to be developed as a pedestrian street c between the ball park and the proposed parking structure. The parking structuie cbuld .2 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. 1st -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). 6) Z 9 Bermello, Ajamil and Partners I -l1 iii N.W. I I tho ST. Chiller Plant N.W. IOtho ST. ti N.w-9tn. ST._ MAL N.W. litho ST. BERAIEl�O AJARIII � PARTNERS INC. "75'f to i 60 ®' I , 940 N 0 LU Z a P� J D 0 m LU Ito 70 Site 16.4 Acres Open Space - - 4.44 Acres Realigned N. E. 1st Ave. ----J 2.95 Acres / 1,754' View Corridor —� 2.31 Acres Submitted into the public record In connection with 1tm __ j.___ on —,3//C/C,) Wafter Foeman City Cleric PARK WEST &TE 01 2153 POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES 0 `.0' 100' 200' 100' :00' I r) 0 W w w I- 0 0 Q U c� U) O Q _J N U) LL F- IIth. St. d W --Wig PARK W) --STI, SITE -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - I - ---- - - r�' �.W. 7th. St. —UT] al a > al TFU I Cm in LU i Site View Corridor ,� C1IT�I OF AGAAC MARLINS PALL PARD DOWNTOWN i 1 D LM'4ARX ALTERNAM1E LOCATIONS EVALUATION nmenm =AT)MA KA: PARK WEST SITE Submitted into the public record in connection _with item L_ on ,�/ 4C,& i Walter Foeman City Cleric POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES ar w• goo :on��soo•=riP� 2JA LU 0 0 0 40 'Fl M"6194M, W13 A N.W. I I th. St. N. 9th. St. N.W. 9th. St. Mail , 4�4 M Vw Rf1h St. L N.W. 7th. _T T 395 L1151 -AL ICENTENN PARS - S ITE 1 -5 6 A,,-c,r, 6 s ITT-- ------------------ >w 0 LU N.W. 6th. St. V, Realigned N.E. I st Ave. Lq Property to Condemn 19.12 Acres IR.O.W. to Vacate 1 4.67 Acres Sub -Total 23.79 Acres Optional 2.31 Acres Iia Total 26.1 Acres !ERMELLO AJA CFFY OF AEANE MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN . ........ PRELLME"4-ARY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS EVALUATION MTAMI FfnRIDA Subff9tted into the public record in connection with r _4_— on Wafter Foeman REQUIRED PROPERTY city C" CONDEMNATION PARK WEST SITE 01- 253 POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES < N r . . ,• ♦ i v a A t ?i r t tea' - AP jy v0 3 F SITE F +^ • . .j �L .. -or Miami Arena TAX- S �i • vy e. . ♦ % �s.. ?, • {ice ,`• ''' ,b#' " ° �!' ! 1 � ^{ rya +•Nw. � • w+ y .*"'•e�`t • .r. .. . wY,•F��.:,k ;, +'WNP -... .,s,,:ra ... ,may � '� S. - .. -" , i ✓ y` „a, .. f ' � ti • ti. Submitted into the public record in connection with on �— Walter Foeman City Clerk � -- 253 MAf .,M ' A! + :N i f ... t ,w.ry.,.., a - qq , 4.t • r * '.t r +!4 f MI•a„ tir'„fy,ya h t }.� ��a - --woro" 1� fir Am op e r n - - M1 40 jf# tt 1- - � . o.. _.. _ ... dee..•..• -, �.»M,,..� ' � j ��.�. ;' � � , M �_ •'�.. _ f •� �' '0.O'.«s � .. .,a�iw• :,tom,_ AL No CI 1 41 ., F e ,� A . 1 • i + 1 M..�.+NMM., T- 1����� t�j�y�j.:,- - ,• Qae•far.rlu h 00IS h . ` ,. •lMi+. 'mil low : # Miarn� Arena • 9 LOW— dw h" mak. ,� ' •71$ _ yi� ��� • "�,' - . 9... w• .�,� <t R 1 _ t f!. • ; • `,.. 44' �.r. l low.a3 _ 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. l,t 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. 1st Avenue (From R.R. Tracks to N.E. 111 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 Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-18 ` 4. Sidewalks 4400 L.F. x $15.00 = 66,000 5. 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 Submitted into the public D. Traffic Light Systems = 200,000 record in connection ith E. Modifications to adjacent & Wafter Foemat intersecting streets (L.S.) = 250,000 city clew F. Storm Drainage 18 catch basin @ $4,000 = 72,000 24,000 L.F. exfiltration trench @ $100.00 240.000 Subtotal: $ 822,000 �r C) Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-18 ` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Marlins Ball Park 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: $ 2,765,000 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. Submitted into the public reCOM In c0nnecticn with Al on+=''zc/tj I:\LAND\alfredo l\CRABoardMazlinsrepfin.wpd ftftr Foeman CWC -- 3 Bermello, Ajamil and Partners I-19 1 "M i� Ll LJLJ L -j" UU U loll III INllnllll,llll1 ai Ilion �uumill ��� ii IN QTY OF MIAMI MARLINS BALI PARK DOVWrOWN PREUNMORY ALTERNATM LOCMIONS EVALUATION _ LEGEND 1 Ball Park 2 Ball Park Plaza 3 Park i 4 Parking Structure (1,50(J.cars-7 levels) 5 Sports Promenade 6 Reconfigured Land Parcels. N.W. 7th Street 7 Biscayne Blvd. Improvements 8 New Uses for Bicentennial Park Park/Museums/Art Galleries/ Restaurant/Open Space 0 I Z.E. O a Subrn+tted -into the public record In connection with on / Wafter Foeman , _� , .. city t�k . - A PARK WEST SITE -k- Illustrative Site Plan MARLINS BALI PARK All 'r Prepared for: City of Mir 1 6� Community Agency C1VIIN Engind fitted into the public j in connection with �_. on ��<, Waiter Foeman City Cleric March 8, 2001 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 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 7711 STREET NE 8.. STREET NE 9.. STREET NE 10TH STREET NE 11TH STREET 1-395 RELOCATED ROADWAY IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES UTILITIES WATER SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) GAS CHILLED WATER LINES 9"' STREET PUMP STATION Submitted Into the PUb11C record in connection with ftmon On 07 Welter Foeman City Clerk oi- 253 March 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Park West Site at NE 9tH Street (Site 1) SITE AREA SITE IMPROVEMENTS RESPONSE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SITE AVAILABILITY DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY IMPACTS NE 1ST AVENUE NE 2ND AVENUE NORTH MIAMI AVENUE NE 9TH STREET NE 10TH STREET NE 11TH STREET UTILITIES WATER SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) GAS CHILLED WATER LINES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INTRODUCTION RECORDS REVIEW SITE RECONNAISSANCE SUSPECT ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIAL PRELIMINARY NEPA CHECKLIST RECOMMENDATIONS March 8, 200f TABLE OF CONTENTS Submitted Into the public record in connection�'t h __I___ on Walter Foeman City Clerk 1 - A03 Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. 1i r 5 r MARLIE BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 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 97H 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 PTRANSIT GREENWAY APPLICATIONS TO THE MARLINS BALL PARK AND CRA RELATED LINKAGES TO THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES r rSubr*tted intc the publIC record In connection with Item _Lon . �� a Wafter FOeman C^t CW* P March 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, Inc, 1 01- MARLINS ciALL 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. Sued ie-tto th® publiC record in connection with/ on Walter Foernan City Clerk March 8, 2001 Civil-EADD Engineering, Inc. 0_"` MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency NON -PREFERRED ALTERNATE SITE EVALUATIONS 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 8th 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 1. 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 61h 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. r r r r r 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. March 8, 200f SuJbtted into the public r©cord in conne-.V0 t with KeAt on 3� Wafter Foeman City Clerk 01— 2�t Civi/-CA00 Engineering, Inc. -x •-."Ise, � _,. � _ t' J v cs±* 4 = — ti 7 Ir rae 1m'vm,F-I 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 6th Street has required NW 3`d Avenue be one way north up to NW 9th Street. After NW 9th Street, NW 3`d Avenue is a two-way street. NW 2nd Avenue allows traffic traveling south on NW 3`d 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 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. rSubmitted into the public record in connectionwith PWafter Foeman City Clerk March 8,2,00f Civil--CADO Engineering, Inc. r r r r Ll r r r Fi 4 r MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede velopment Agency NE 2ND AVENUE SITE (SITE 5) The site is bounded by NE 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard between 9th Street and 1-395. This is an extremely expensive and time consuming proposal. 3. Removal of NE 2nd Avenue between NE 91h Street and 1-395 presents serious problems with traffic that presently utilizes NE 2nd Avenue to access 1-395. This particularly affects the Port of Miami truck traffic, which depends on NE 2nd 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. March 8, 200f Submitted Into the rOcOfd in connection Public on Walter FOeMan L, City Clerk 1 — 2ir--)3 Civil-CADD Engineering, /ac. ...... "1 PARKING 4.1 pow— '114 =*40'V* 3..` • li'.. T. f � � ti� ...L.. � 3 I.Ir r' as r r Submitted into the public � MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: rec*rd in conne, fion with DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES inn on 3/! City of Miami Community Redevelopment Deman City Clerk 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 off could be provided on the north side of the facility. This area could also serve to house the 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. 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 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 %2 -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 station, approximately %2 -mile from the stadium. At the March 8, 200-f Civil-CA00 Engineering, /nc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 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 residents; 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. March 8,200f Submitted into Vile public re(*rd In connectlo with on Waiter Foeman City Clerk 01-- 253 Civil -CAVO Engineering, Inc. r r r r r G r r 0 F P �I P r r r r Submitted into the public MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: record In connection with DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES h9R1 �_ on / 1 City of Miami Community Redevelopment WpiI? r&yyoeman u , City Cleric 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 2nd Avenue, or to the south of the ball park on NE 2nd Avenue. A parking structure on the west side of NE 2nd 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 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 natural 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 2nd Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard, and NE 11th 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 11th 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 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 March 8, 200f+ Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. 0 � r r Submitted into the public record in connection with MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: Itw on / a DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES V4 as er Foeman City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agenc i Ulet1C Arts Center, Bicentennial Park, American Airlines Arena, Bayfront Park, Bayside, and future development on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. ROADWAY IMPACTS 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 61h Street intersection, just south of the American Airlines Arena, and would reconnect to the existing roadway at NE I e 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 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 landscaped median, and turn lanes. NE 7TH STREET This street will be modified to create a new intersection with the relocated Biscayne Boulevard. NE 8TH STREET 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 distance limitations. NE 9TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2nd Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard. The vacated right-of-way will be utilized by new development adjacent to the ballpark. NE 10TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2nd Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard. The vacated right-of-way will become part of the new the ballpark. NE 11TH 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. March 8, Zoof ®1-- 25-3 Civi/-CAOD Engineering, Inc. Suibt.aitted i;rHG time Pubiic with MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: record incct�;ctitrt on DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES Walter Poeman vity Cleric City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agent 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 9th 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 91h 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. WATER 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 B' c yne B?ylav d. rMarch 8,200f Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. Submitted Into the public MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: record In cvrar?ctl��t DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES items City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agenccy 4. 12 -inch Potable Water Main along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard (ends at NE 10 to Street) These mains will be relocated to within the new Biscayne Boulevard corridor. The 12 -inch and 6 -inch water mains on NE 8th 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 11th Street will be removed since they are r 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. rSANITARY SEWER There are two (2) sanitary sewer force mains within the existing Biscayne Boulevard corridor. P These force mains are as follows: 1. A 42 -inch force main from the NE 91h Street Pump Station within the northbound lanes of existing Biscayne Boulevard. 2. A 48 -inch force main running south from the NE 9th Street Pump Station along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. This main turns and runs west along NE 81h Street. 3. A 72 -inch gravity sewer pipe, which collects all the sewage from the northeast area of the county between Downtown Miami and Aventura. The 42 -inch force main, 48 -inch force main, and 72 -inch gravity pipe relocations are further described with the NE 91h Street Pump Station relocation. DRAINAGE Drainage pipes within the existing Biscayne Boulevard will be removed, and a new drainage system will be installed along with the new roadway. NE 8th and NE 9th Street drainage that is presently connected to the Biscayne Boulevard drainage system will be extended along with rthe roadway connections to the new Biscayne Boulevard. The NE 10'h 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. 1 C v 3 March 8, 200f Civil-CA00 Engineering, /nC. Submitted into public rewrd In connection wig MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: on DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES Wafter Foemdn ..w r:h, clerk City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Two (2) electric lines that run along NE 11th 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 9th and NE 10th Streets. There are manholes and connections to these lines at various points along the mainline. Relocation of these lines is expected to occur along rwith the Biscayne Boulevard relocation. The NE 9th 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. GAS There is a 4 -inch gas main that runs beneath existing Biscayne Boulevard along the west side 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 rBoulevard and will bend to the west to reconnect to the 3 -inch and 8 -inch mains. CHILLED WATER LINES f 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. 9T" 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: March 8, 2007 Civi/-GADO Engineering, /nc- MARLINS BALLPARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 1. Bicentennial Park at the southeast quadrant of the relocated Biscayne Boulevard and the Metro -Mover. 2. The northeast quadrant of 1-395 and Biscayne Boulevard in the Miami Herald parking lot. March 8, 2001 Submitted into the public record in connection with {Natter Foeman City Cmk 01- 253 Civil--CADD Engineering, Inc. USA 1 �a M.W. ten. St. Mlaml Mona Amorlcan Alrilnu otre Rall tat on Arona Z Pu b Mowr 3tallon I-95 o?2 11 C7 u , fLi t: 1 ..... � Mears ; s►� 1 Site 10 acres a iIix3r 4 CI 7K� i�I ]TI 1 11 MH -_ Metrorail Park West Arena Towers People Mover Metrorail Station Chiller Plant RR tracks to POM People Mover Station Vehicular Circulation N.W. 9th Street Mall,n\ Miami Arena LI v CII.( OF 1VIIAM MARLINS BALL 1FARIC DOWNTOWN PRELPAUqARY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS ]EVALUATION AJAIL S PARTNERS INC. lY1 Arvff, FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS PARK WEST SITE POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES N x• zoo' aa• w' soa' —`y. Il! - Submitted into the public record In connection with on 34a: I Walter Foeman City Clerk 01- 253 ____j NE 13TH ST. I- PMP R NE 12TH ST. RG 0 RE-ALI NED BISCAY E BOULEVARD ca w BICENTENNIAL r PARK a I W � z O Pip— O NE 8TH a R 600' 30mh N e =0.02) w AMERICAN Z AIRLINES ARENA t Submitted into the publiC record in connection with 1 on 3 //f/o i Walter Foeman City Clerk CITY OF Mf" MARIM BALL PARK Z� 3 r N ALTERNATIVE SPIE LOCATION EVALUATION vas REDEVELOPNEiT AGENCY (CM r r r POTENTIAL NORTH 1-395 PARKING GARAGE SITE POTENTIAL NE 2ND AVE PARKING GARAGE SITE 0 z N W z PERFORMING (ARTSRFORMING ARTS CENTER 0 CENTER NE 13TH ST. NE 12TH ST. Nj RE -ALIGNED BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I BICENTENNIAL PARK record in connocV n with on I a/ I F -1-1-L BWAYNE BOULEVARD WEST SITE Walter Foeman PREFERRED PARING ALTERNATE LOCATIONS City Clerk No rCIIY OF MMW MARLVS BALL PARR 0 1- 253 r N ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATION EVALUATION COWUNTTY REDEVELOPMEqT AGENCY (CU (AL 'ZUE a (9 cn Corr a-1 I El4 T T Ems_ EE L-- 1.40 C. MIRIES OF ALLOCATED MW TOTAL BUILDING AREA °B°= 6.16 AC. : C'' ng°-AVOIL-, Pd�EA -r,- - a A(, TOTAL PAVING AREA `B' = OM AC. TOTAL AREA 31.90 AC. NDE AREA. - B. 0 0 0 0 CIVIL—CARD LN G I N E H- /N U cr = 4 e A/+ 1.6 AC ='The total amount of land required for this layout = 9.7 AC h "Property generated from realignment = 4.5 AC 1 Property from purchase or swap = 3.5 AC Property from row = 1.7 AC w?roparty available for swap = 2.7 AC 1; ;This layout require the purchase of = 0.8 AC w Property to be - purchased or swap 3.5 AC ,-'Poparty OWIIGtd by YJY iUuniyi Gill 1 i CIVILCADD ENGINEERING i 4 1.9 AC ,! I q Property to be purchased or swap 1.9 AC I'moefly ijwf ied by AC- jw.z CIVIL.—CADU L-NGINECRINC 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 = 2.1 AC Property available for swap = 1.3 AC This layout require the purchase of = 3.6 AC CIVIL.—CADU L-NGINECRINC ?.BAC-- 1.2 AC �r�s�ny to �Jt1ll;ricl�c'i] vl- $yVF3�i " Property owned by city, county / DOT. -! .' PSC- 1.2 AC Ci VIL- CADD ENGINEERING 0 SPACE PARKING _GAR6EF,----T- 4aw Dawe �r X; LQ EXIST, BISCAiNE BM N'l CL t3c c') 08 i0 m MIAMI MARLINS SCHEMA A WILL FIT AT THIS LACTION WITH MINOR MODIFICATION OF PARKING FACILITY. IT WOULD REQUIRE -12,-? ACRES, C'cll /; D L, rvl CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING 1500 SPACE PARKING GARGF ,� 1 IRA Ul Al - t EXIST, B SCAYNE BLVD ........ V7 �• � •� I i ,_ 1 ' _. ' �/,,. ` 11 / 1' l 11 � � _ _.�+• �?i 0 0- `� � � I, � • � ��� .` ;_'_� � JCA t lvr �s� 3 IE CY t - MIAMI MARUNS Sc'HEMA H WILL FIT AT THIS LACITION 1NIT11-4 '0- SITF PARKING BETWEEN 10th & THIS SCHEMA WILL REQUIRE A( RFr 'T CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING --.0 1 IVES (DAIRY R❑ Salto u,17 _ 3+75) 690--9797 4-1 -RAL LF CW - Ln C3 EXIST, BECAYhE BLVD. c/ 0 fill 0 2, CD MIAMI MARLINS SCHEMA C Mt WILL FIT AT THIS LACFION WITH OFF—SITE PARKIN` - BETWEEN 10th & 11th STREET. THIS SCHEME VVII'L REQUIRE 10 ACRES CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING Its 1D% r r r r MARLINo BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Park West Site at NE 9th 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 2nd 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 2nd Avenue be widened to two (2) in each travel direction with a median from NE 5th Street to 1-395. rSITE 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 r r r r N r 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. 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 5th Street to 1- 395. Traffic, in particular port related traffic, would access NE 2nd Avenue at 6th Street traveling north to 1-395 and would turn on NE 5th Street to gain Port of Miami access traveling south from 1-395. Once 1-395 is upgraded improvements to the access ramps at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue could be implemented. View Corridors A view corridor would have to be established between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, from 91h Street to 10th 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 2nd Avenue will allow access areas for both tour and event bus drop off as well as event c8immftt oft, i�blic vehicle access. record iq connvetion with bm on Wafter Foemg Cars March 8, 200 Civi/--CADD Engineering, Mc. Subanitted Into. the public MARLINb BALL PARK STUDY: record i,� ccr�er with � t on DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES YVetfter Foeran City of Miam/ Community Redevelopment Age Cle* 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. rPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS h 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 91h 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 2nd 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 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 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-CAOD Eng/neer/ng, /nc, 01- 4 z Limb 16 e � _ s •, t 4 1 , . rr f J ` .sa,,,,.,�,._ - ,:i- .. !. •aiugLil@�l '. 'i �� *"5� ���[7/If'7 �'y � F.ti,. �.,�., r'.. ♦ r,• i t F �1 .^ ' 1��; ��' � I ' � .� jfh� ` "f i!i YYi, l .�{_� fh � l i'� .J f• 1f } w.,�,. All PARKING 1 i I// � 1 r. Vii: / .r .i.^`����� I I•((+,r y "' 1 H[i'lifI f i "'" f.' .'n,.��' f :.fit , •. .� T ` .,r .' ♦ d t 2ICCeJ '1Ito�_ IL r �1' r r F r r MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency 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 2nd 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. Submitted into the public record in connec yo w ROADWAY IMPACTS iii I on 1 Wafter Foeman rA y Cleft NE 1 ST AVENUE Under the NE 91h Street concept, NE 1St Avenue would be vacated for approximately 1,100 feet between 9th Street and 12th Street. The portion of NE 1St Avenue south of 12th Street could be 9 utilized as an access drive to the new parking structure for the ball park. NE 2ND AVENUE NE 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 6th 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. r 01- 253 rMarch 8, 200f Civil-CA00 Engineering, Inc. Submitted into the public jw MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: record In cc nn's„U-tl h Item DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES --J-- =�!1_ City of Miami Community Redeye/opment Agency-���r�kn ,,yqrlf NE 9TH STREET This street will be improved between North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. The existing 2 -way traffic pattern would remain. NE 10TH STREET NE 10th Street would be vacated for approximately 1,300 feet between North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. Portions of the vacated NE 10th Street could be utilized as access drives to the new ball park and the open space east of NE 2nd Avenue. rNE 11TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2nd 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 removed. These are described below. WATER There are existing water mains that run along NE 10th Street, NE 11th Street, and NE 1St Avenue. These water mains would be removed and larger water mains would be installed along NE 9th 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. These 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 2nd Avenue provide opportunities to improve the overall drainage of the area by providing more green space. Drainage should not be an issue with this proposed ball park site. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) The main issue with FPL is the existing chiller facility along NE 11th Street that was recently constructed. This facility will not be disturbed by the ball park; however, the new parking garage is proposed to go over the chiller. �? March 8, 200f Civil-CADO Engineering, /nc. MARLINb BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede velopment Agency Two (2) electric lines that run along NE 10th Street and NE 11th Street must be relocated to go around the new ballpark. BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) The NE 9th 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. GAS 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. March 8, 2007 Subnmtted int® the public with record in connecti- Wn on an Walter Foem amity Clerk iC's w -' 053 Civil-CADD Engineering, /nc, r r r r MARLINb BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City pf Miami Community Rede velopment Agency Submitted ins ^ _.1u llc 10 Willi recce in co��s°a�v�v M, __)-_---_ on Waiter Foernan City Clerk ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INTRODUCTION 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 2nd Avenue (to the west); Bicentennial Park (to the east); NE 11th Terrace and/or an elevated "MetroMover" line (to the north); and NE 9th 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 public roadways which transverse the property (from west to east) include NE 9th, 10th and 11 t Streets as well as NE 11th Terrace. 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 1527 as a recognized environmental condition. The ESA also included a preliminary evaluation 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 �x condition of the property. SITE RECONNAISSANCE We observed potential evidence of USTs at 901 NE 2nd Avenue (apparent vent pipe), 900 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. III 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, /Ylarch 8, 2001 C/ V//- EngilfvpInc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede velopment 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. IPRELIMINARY 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 r and/or locating sampling points. 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. F r r FMarch 8,200Y Subv*tted into the public record in connects on Wafter Foeman City Gerd( v I - 25-3 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. Subooliie+d Infer the public MARLIK., BALL PARK STUDY: record in connection with DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES i --�-- on A� Falter Foeman City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agen Clerk OVERALL STUDY AREA MOBILITY ANALYSIS 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. 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 proposed four sites for the baseball stadium were reviewed using the following parameters: March 8, 2001 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. - 253 r r r r 1i r r r P r r r r r r SubrMtted into the public record in connfW�,ti n w. MARLINa BALL PARK STUDY: on DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES 'Wafter Foeman City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Cu Fierk 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 3`d, 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 9th 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 2nd 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 1st and 2nd 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 10th Street March 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. 01_+ 2 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 101 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 10th Street will need to be relocated to NE 9th Street. NE 2nd Avenue may also need to become a two-way arterial, with a minimum of two lanes in each direction, from 1-395 to NE 6th Street to minimize conflicts with northbound traffic. For example, rtraffic on northbound Biscayne Boulevard south of NE 6th Street heading to 1-395 westbound will need to do the following with NE 2nd Avenue as a two-way street between 1-395 and NE 9th Street only: • Step 1 - Turn left at NE 6th Street, then right at NE 1st Avenue. Submitted Into the public Step 2 - Turn right again at NE 9th Street. record in n ccnnecti n with ■ Step 3 - Turn left at NE 2"d Avenue. Walter Foeman Step 4 - Turn left again at NE 12th Street and get on 1-395. Cly Clerk Steps 1 through 3 are not needed if NE 2nd Avenue becomes a 2 -way street between 1-395 and NE 6th Street. Other roadways to be impacted include 1-95 off -ramp to NW 3`d 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 10th 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 8th Street exit on 1-95. This would however add approximately 4,300 vehicles on NE 2nd Avenue and on NE 8th 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 10th 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 start of the games or events during weekdays. Major impacts are to be expected at the NW 8th Street Interchange with 1-95 and NW 8th Street itself leading to the site. Miami Arena West Site (Poinciana) From the north and west trips to this site could potentially use 1-95 south off -ramp to NW 8th Street and head north on NW 3`d 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 1Y2 -hour time period. Although special traffic management measures March 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. 01- 2 3 Sub tted into the public record in cnnne-'ion with MARLIN.. BALL PARK STUDY: item on - , DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNA . SITES Waiter Foeman Clerk City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency could be put in place to facilitate stadium traffic, such a heavy volume is expected to have a P 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. h r r 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 8th 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 8th 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 11th 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 8th 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 2nd Avenue between NE 9`h Street and 1-395 would leave Biscayne Boulevard as the only major access to 1-395 for northbound traffic heading west. -1C) _- J March B, 200 Civi/--CADD Engineering, /nc. r u r r r MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency NW 1" 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 91h Street Site would cause NE 10th Street to be closed east of North Miami Avenue. Traffic on NW 10th Street would then need to turn left on NW 1" Avenue heading north. Likewise, traffic on NW 10th 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 10th Street will need to be relocated to NE 9th Street. Traffic on Biscayne Boulevard will also increase in the southbound direction if NE 2nd Avenue is closed between 1-395 and NE 9th 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 2nd 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. rBicentennial 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 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. SubrNtted into the public Potential users of transit services include: record in COQ-Mection with 1. Downtown workers that want toame o to a after work. Ort _Ia �/ 9 9 Walter Foeman w City Clerk March 8, 2007 Civil--CAOO Engineering, Inc. _ s:�r i� `' V 3 MARLINa BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 2. Residents from the suburbs that want to avoid the hassle of driving. Submitted into the public 3. Users that depend on public transportation for their mobility needs. record iq CoF�ection wlt 4. Visitors or residents coming from or going to Miami Beach. Rom��Weger Foeman Cid Clerk 5. Bus patrons that could be drawn from throughout the city. 6. People that park at remote parking locations including the OMNI and other downtown parking locations. 1 7. People that want to enjoy nearby dining or shopping opportunities before or after the game. 8. Other local area residents or workers. 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 99 P 9 systems is contained in sections that follow. FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES 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, 2001 Civil -CARD Engineering, Inc, 0- - �'�)3 ubrW ed into the public record in cof ocI'lon with MARLIN,. BALL PARK STUDY: Item --J-- on 91 DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES Wafter F—,—Pan G -sty Clerk City of Miami Community Rede veiopment 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 %-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. 01— 2 5 Z March 8,200f Civil -CAVO Engineering, inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede velopment Agency MARLINS STADIUM STUDY I I March 8, 200 Transit Capacity 1- 253 Civil-CAOD Engineering, /nc. P r 1-i t r r r r N r 1J r r r t Submitted into the Public record in connec-tion with MARLIN. BALL PARK STUDY: i �� on DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES Walter Foeman City of Miami Commanity Rede veiopinent Agej7 it y Cleric LOCAL BUS CAPACITY ROUTE DIRECTIONAD Miami Beach LRT to MetroRail HOUR HOUR 95 X North No Evening Service Total Proposed Transit Capacity 9,500 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. TRANSIT LINK CAPACITY PER • MetroMover south connect to MetroRail 1,920 MetroMover north to Omni Parkin 1,920 Local Bus 1,725 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 IMarch 8, "Of Civil--CA00 Engineering, inc. t t t L7 f f L f t t u t t t t MARLINS BALL 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 to Overtown station, approximately %2 -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. Marlins Stadium 40,000 seats 2. American Airlines Arena 22,000 seats Submitted into the public iy 3. Opera House 2,480 seats record®� utiO , wIa I Ron 4. Concert Hall 2,200 seats WaWr Foemaln s y Cif 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, should be examined to provide additional service during the period of highest demand. DOWNTOWN PARKING Within a'/2 -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 %2 -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, 200Y Civil --CAVO Engineering, /nc, MARLIi.S BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency DOWNTOWN PARKING LOTS LOCATION PARKING SPACES American Airlines Arena North Arena Drive and Biscayne Boulevard 1200 Bayside NE 2" Street to Biscayne Boulevard 1200 Bayside Valet parking 120 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard NE Adjacent to the Arena 75 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard median SE 1S -Street to NE 5,n Street 287 Biscayne Boulevard NE Biscayne Boulevard on -street parking 52 NW 3` Street Biscayne Boulevard to NE 3` Street 8 NW 3` Street NE 3ru Street to 2 -Avenue 250 NW 5 1hStreet 1S Avenue to 2" Avenue 23 NW 5 Street 2" Avenue to 3` Avenue 14 NW 5 th Street 4 1hAvenue to 7 Avenue 78 NW 5 thStreet N E 5 mStreet to NE 4 nStreet 350 NW 5 Avenue NE6 mStreet to 5 1hAvenue 300 NW 5 Avenue 5 Avenue on -street parking 50 NW 6'h Street 1s Ave to 3` Avenue 62 NW 6 Street 4 thAvenue to 6 1hAvenue 62 NW 6 1hStreet NE 6 1hStreet to Biscayne Boulevard 300 NW TO Avenue 5 1hStreet to 7 Street 30 NW 7 Street NE 2" Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard 7 NW 7,n Street 15 Court to 2nd Avenue 32 NW 7 Street NE 7,n Street on street parking 25 NW 7 1hStreet NE 7 1hto Miami Avenue 72 NW 7 Street NE 7 thStreet to 2 no Avenue 32 NW 7 'Street NE 7 Street to 4 Avenue 40 NW 8 th Street 1 s' Avenue to 1 st Court 62 NW 8 1hStreet NE Biscayne Boulevard to NE 8 1hStreet 300 NW 8 Street NE8... Street to 4,n Avenue 110 NW 8 Street NW 8 1hStreet on -street parking 20 NW 91hStreet 9 Street to 2na Avenue 88 NW 1 01hStreet Biscayne Boulevard to NE 15 Avenue 17 NW 10 Street NE 1S Avenue to N. Miami Avenue 40 NW 1 01hStreet 1 s' Court to 4 1hAvenue 42 NW 10 Street NE 10 Street to 2" Avenue 17 Old Arena NW111hStreet to 2" Avenue 88 NW 11 Street Biscayne Boulevard to NE 2nd Avenue 14 NW 111hStreet 1 St Avenue to 2" Avenue 30 NW 11 Street 2" Avenue to 11 Street 200 NW 11 Street NE 111hStreet to 3` Avenue 14 NW 12 thStreet Under the overpass at Biscayne Boulevard 120 NW 13 Street NE Biscayne Boulevard to NE 13 mStreet 100 NW 13 Street NE 11 Street to 2 Avenue 350 March 8, 2009 SubfWtted Into the Public record In connec c th ---1--- on -/ Wafter Eneman City Clerk TOTAL: 6,281 eI_r 203 Civi!-CADD Engineering, Inc. March 8, 200 MARLIbrd BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency APPENDICIES Sub"tt,ad Into thO Public recO,rd ir't connev-t1on with WaWr Foeman CitY Clerk 01 - 0 3 Civil-CAOD Engineering, Inc. MARLIN. BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency COST ESTIMATES FOR THE BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SITE Preliminary Statements of Probable Construction Costs were prepared for the modifications of the Biscayne Boulevard Relocation, MetroMover Underpass, Utility Relocations, and 9ch Street Pump Station Relocation. Costs are summarized below with detailed cost descriptions shown on the following pages. 1. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RELOCATION 2. METROMOVER UNDERPASS 3. UTILITY RELOCATIONS 4. 9T" STREET PUMP STATION RELOCATION 5. NEW GRAVITY SEWER AND FORCE MAIN (Pump Station Relocated) 6. GRAVITY SEWER MAIN (Pump Station Remains) March 8,200f $7,092,000.00 $7,875,000.00 $3,908,025.00 $67,500,000.00 $7,507,500.00 $4,372,500.00 Subrittect into the public record i Connection with item on -3 Walter Foeman City Clerk 01 2�3 Civil-CADD Engineering, lnc. t t t a l 7 1 1 1 MARL..wS BALL PARK STUDY: 'A -1'v,. -'DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede ve/opment Agency BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RELOCATION Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT SM I h5 I 1111A I h1l AMOUNT $ 5,673,600 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 1,134,720 PRICE QUANTITY 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 8. ----------- Curb --------------------------------------- LF ---------------- $15.00 ----------------- ------- ---- ---$750,000 12,000 $180,500 -------------------- 9. ----------- Drainage ------------------------------------- -- ----LF----- - $125.00 - ----------------------- ----------- -6,000 10. ----------- Sidewalk -------------------------------------- SF ---------------- $3.00 ----------------- ------- ---$750,000 40,000 $120,500 --11_ -- Signing & Marking----------------- LS -------------------- ----------------------- 1 $250,000 12. Signalized Intersection ----------------------- - --------------- EA ----------------- $100.00 -------------------- ----------------------- 5 $750,000 13. Landscape & Irrigation ---------------- LS ----------------- ------------------- ----------------------- 1 $250,000 March 8, 200f 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 Submitted into tl�e public re'*rti jn connection with lieAt Wafter 1=oeman Ci Cleric - 25 Civil -CARO Engineering, Inc. MARLIPv BALL PARK STUDY; DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede ve%pment 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 Mal -n& 8, 200f Submitted Into the public record in connection with Wetter Foeman City Clerk 0_- 253 Civ# --CAVO Engineering, /nc. MARLIn3 BALL PARK STUDY: �r DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede ve%pment Agency UTILITY RELOCATIONS Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost March 8, 200f SUBTOTAL $ 2,605,350 Contingency (20%) $521,070 SUBTOTAL $ 3,126,4580 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) DESCRIPTIONITEM Administration (5%) $ 156,321 GRAND TOTAL • QUANTITYPRICE _-__1-_____ Mobilization o) ----------------- 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 7_ 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 March 8, 200f 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 Submitted into the public record in connection with item on aAL. LL Walter Foernan City Clerk 01- 253 C,f vil-CADD Engineering, /nc, P r r r r r r P P MARLIN.. BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 9T" STREET PUMP STATION RELOCATION Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost March 8, 2003 recor=on nnection with � "'W-Lj &j Walter Foeman City Cleric 01— 253 Civi/-CADD Engineering, Inc. Demolition of Existing Pump LS 1 $2,000,000 Station ---------------- ----------------- -------------------- ----------------------- ------- 2. --------------------------------------- New Pump Station LS 1 -------------------- $34,000,000 --------------- --- -- ------- 3. --------------------------------------- Site Procurement ---------------- LS ----------------- ----------------- 2 -------------------- $2,000,000 ----- ----------------- ------- 4. --------------------------------------- Local Pump Station ---------------- LS I L 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 March 8, 2003 recor=on nnection with � "'W-Lj &j Walter Foeman City Cleric 01— 253 Civi/-CADD Engineering, Inc. MARL1h..s BALL 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 March 8, 2001 NEW GRAVITY SEWER AND FORCE MAIN (Pump Station Relocated) $455,000 -------------- $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 Sub iced into the public record in conne tlori with Item ora<�b Walter Foeman City Cleric 253 Civi/--CADD Engineering, /nc. MARLh BALLPARK 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. --------------------------------- 70" Gravity Sewer Main LS ------- 4. --------------------------------------- Junction Boxes LS March 8, 200f 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 SebrM ted into the public record In connection with llem on i l! -5-ZQ-1 Walter Foeman City Clerk Civil--CAOO Engineering, Inc. I SAWMARLINS , BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede velopment Agency COST ESTIMATES FOR THE NE 9T" STREET SITE 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 the following pages. 1. NE 2ND AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION $4,286,700.00 2. NE 9T" STREET SITE UTILITY RELOCATION $2,838,000.00 GRAND TOTAL March 8,200Y $ 7,124,700.00 submitteii info ti c- E uuhc record In connactlo with Ron on Walter Foreman City Cleric 01- 253 Civil -CARD Engineering, Inc. u _ MARLIK ,� BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopinent Agency NE 2"D AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost March 8, 200 SUBTOTAL DESCRIPTIONITEM Contingency (20%) $571,560 SUBTOTAL $ 3,429,360 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITYPRICE • 1. ----------- Mobilization (10%) --------------------------------------- LS ---------------- ----------------- -------------------- $389,000 2. ----------- Maintenance of Traffic --------------------------------------- LS ---------------- ----------------- -------------------- ----------------------- $389,000 ----------------------- 3. ----------- Demolition --------------------------------------- LF ---------------- ----------------- -------------------- $100,000 ----------------------- 4. Earthwork LF $250,000 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 $750,000 11. Landscape &Irrigation LS -lot $250,000 March 8, 200 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 Submitted into the public record in connection with on Welter Eoeman City Clerk 01 _ r3 .� Civil--CADO Engineering, Inc, IR MARLIiw BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Cominanity Redevelopment Agency NE 9T" STREET SITE UTILITY RELOCATION Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost March 8,200f SUBTOTAL DESCRIPTIONITEM Contingency (20%) $378,400 SUBTOTAL $ 2,270,400 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) PRICE QUANTITY • GRAND TOTAL $ 2,838,000 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 8,200f SUBTOTAL $1,892,800 Contingency (20%) $378,400 SUBTOTAL $ 2,270,400 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 454,080 Administration (5%) $ 113,520 GRAND TOTAL $ 2,838,000 oubvnitted into the public record in conn ocr with Waiter Foeman City Clerk Civil -CARD Engineering, lnc. _ MARLIN _ SALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WEST SCHEDULE March 8, 2007 Submitted into the public regard in connection with Walter Foeman City Clerk 04- 253 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. Qtr 2, 20• Qtr 3, 2001 Qtr 4, 2001 Qtr 1, 2002 Qtr 2, 2002 Qtr 3, 2002 Qtr 4, 2002 1, 2003 Qtr 2, 2003 Qtr 3, 2003 2003 Qtr 1,2004 _ - - Qtr 2, 2004 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish A--r- A-p-r—T., I Jun Jul I AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul AugSep Oct I Nov Dec ,n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aub S_e_p I Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr may Jun 1 RELOCATE BISCAYNE BLVD 575 days Tue 511/01 Mon 7114/03 2 Design 35 Wks Tue 5/1/01 Mon 12/31/01 3Permitting (SFWMD, DERM, FDOT) 8 wks Tue 12/4/01 Mon 1/28/02 4 Bidding 6 Wks Tue 1/1/02 Mon 2111102 5Construction 74 Wks Tue 2/12/02 Mon 7/14/03 6 7 UTILITY RELOCATIONS 284 days Tue 5/29/01 -------- .... Fri 6/28/02 8 Design 16 wks Tue 5129/01 Mon 9/17/01 :-:•:•:-:•:-:-:-:•:- • • • • '-- ' 9 Permitting(DEP, HRS, DERM, 6 Wks Tue 9118/01 Mon 10/29/01 WASD 10 Water Mains 12 wks Tue 10/30/01 Mon 1/21/02 11 Sewer Force Mains 12 wks Tue 10/30/01 Mon 1/21/02 12 72" Gravity Sewer 34.8 Wks Tue 10/30/01 Fri 6/28/02 13 FPL 20 wks Tue 10/30/01 Mon 3/18102 14 BellSouth 16 wks Tue 10/30/01 Mon 2118/02 15 16 PUMP STATION RELOCATION 825 days Mon 4/30101 Fri 8/25104 17Desi9n — 44 wks -- ------ Mon 4/30/01 -------- Fri 3/1/02 18 Permitting (DERM, WASD, DEP) 8 wks Mon 314/02 Fri 4126/02 1s tr P Station Construct New um S a Ion P 105 wks Mon 4/29/0 0 2 Fri 4/30/04 - 2° Demolish Old Pump Station 8 Wks Mon 5/3/04 j Fri 6/25/04 21 -- 22 - - --- METRO MOVER RECONSTRUCTION -- ..._..-_...- 330 days Tue 5/15/01 Mon 8/19/02 23 Design 16 wks Tue 5129/01. Mon 9/17/01 24 Permitting (FDOT, FTA) 8 wks' Tue 9/18/01 Mon 11/12/01 25 Construct New Substructure 30 wks Tue 11/13/01 Mon 6/10/02 26 Demolish old substructure 8 Wks Tue 6/11/02 Mon 8/5/02 — — _ - Submitted into the: publiC 28 FILL SLIP No. 3 330 days Tue 5/15/01 Mon 8/19/02 record in CO rin Cti n with �/ � �.. One a 29 Design 9 8 Wks Tue 5/15/01 Mon 719/01 ::_:: - - -- Water Foeman 3o Permitting (DERM,SFWMD, 52wks Tue 7/10/01 Mon 7/8102 Cl/ C DEP SACE US Coast Guard) ,U ' � = 31 Construction 6 wks Tue 7/9102 Mon 8/19/02 01- 253 Marlins Ballpark Biscayne Blvd West ....................... Task ' . ' ' ' '-'-' Progress � Summary ^ Rolled Up Split • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rolled Up Progress � Project Summary Date: Mon 3/12101 Split • • • • • • • • • • • • • Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Q External Tasks Page 1 Submitted into the public record in connection with on Walter Foeman City Clerk NE 2nd Avenue circa 1907 Ridolph Collection Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins Ball Park and CRA Related Linkages to 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; 01- 253 3/12/2001 Page 1 of 14 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 facade, 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; 6) 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 Thomas Luc!do & Associates 3 kwv WXed-usa 3:��urh=re }; Submitted into the public record in connection with on Walter Foeman City Clerk Mixed -Use Corridor With Continuous Building Face 011- 2153 3/12/2001 Page 2 of 14 Archer/Ab bate/U rbanform ZVI" :1116L; Ral I ran -Ir 'tcitia�s chin Typical Construction Costs Mixed -Use Corridor Design Elements Submitted into the public record In connectio with on Waller Foeman City Clerk Edward D. Stone, Jr. & Associates I kA Corridor Mixed -Use and Parking Component bl- 253 3/12/2001 Page 3 of 14 « -ry 47 a a 7'� •� _ r h.,. Y4J* J-4 -T% - W_ � P I,o. f of ' � M..,�� _ �yy �• J Y- �!I Submitted into the public MOMI In conne79713-711 on Walter Foeman City Clerk Rail Transit Vehicle within Pedestrian 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 Page 7 of 14 iia ■ w �fnn.r �j d H. _. .�..: - MEr�� - �. , if MISSIO Transit Greenway Corridors Unlvng the Bail Park with the Miami Community An Eastern Oriented Ball Park Location Between Miami Avenue and NE f Avenue (between NE Stn Street and 1-395) adjacent to the 9th 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. Route A nto the public )nnectio with On / z Wafter Foeman City Cleric car— 253 3/12/2001 Page 8 of 14 B T. NO kjg- ipwr Elm ... -JA Route B submatted into the public record In connectio with iter �— on Walter FoeMan City Clerk minim 0 Ass - 2 ME ARS -12 ; MKO T114TAL min `� r 1�1�11�� � r r. ■ 2MIN trill Route C 01- 253 3/12/2001 Page 9 of 14 /it. Selected Renderings and Photographic Survey of the Area 3/12/2001 MIN Submitted into the PU13"c record i connect,O with on Walter Foeman City Clerk Page 10 of 14 01` 2 � 3 Looking West from NE 2 "d Street along 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor Li jr, i4A i, Archer/Abbate Submitted into the public record In connectloi "th ftw 6 on al Walter Foeman City Clerk 3/12/2001 Page 1 of Looking East from Miami Avenue along the 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor 3/12/2001 Archer/Abbate Submitted into the public record in connection with item _ on s3I Z 1116! Walter Foeman City Clerk Page 12 of 14 Looking North from 13th Street along NW 3'd Avenue Archer/Abbate Submitted into the public record io connectio with iter — on waiter Foeman f:ity Clerk 3/12/2001 Page 13 of 14 01_ - 62 z 3 MARLINS BALL PARK Submitted into the public , X; record in connection with Own on Walter Foeman City Clerk s, Inc. ISI & Partners, Inc. ' `ckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. � services, Inc.