HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #26 - Discussion Item9
-Q Howard V. Gar,.
City Manager
Ir
1 'f:
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM T
°ROM Rick Horrow to
Special Assistant to the
City Manager
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
- 7 OeTE September 15, 1983 Mt
sue-Ec' Laventhol 6 Horwath Presentation
Before City Commission
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES
The consulting firm of Laventhol & Horwath has recently released its
report concerning "Evaluation of Market Support and Operating Potentials
for the Dade County Convention Center Complement". On September 12,
the firm presented its findings and conclusions at a joint workshop
meetingof representatives from the City of Miami, City of Miami Beach,
Dade County, Chambers of Commerce, Downtown Development Authority, Tour-
ist I`:velopment Council, and other interested persons and groups. Early
that morning, the Study and explanatory cover memo was distributed to
each member of the Commission.
Subsequently, City of Miami representativeson the Tourist Development
Council have requested that Laventhol S Horwath make a formal presen-
tation to the entire City of Miami Commission at its first meeting in
October (October 13). I am enclosing the September 12 summary memo-
randum which may be used as background for this agenda item.
8
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
Rick Horrow IwL
Special Assistant to the
City Manager
AV
September 12, 1983
Laventhol & Horwath "Evaluation
of Market Supcort and Operating
Potentials for the Dade County
Convention Center Complement"
On March 10, 1983 the Dade County Commission retained Laventhol &
Horwath to provide a complete evaluation of market support, operating
performance, and long term potential for convention activity in Dade
County. The Contract stipulated that the Project Team would consist
of representatives from Dade County (Jeanne Westphal, Stacy Hornstein),
the City of Miami Beach (Rob Parkins)and the City of Miami (Rick Horrow)
The Final Report and Executive Summary, which will be released and
discussed today, is the product of an extensive research effort. A
number of the more significant issues affecting the City of Miami are
discussed below:
1. The Miami/Miami Beach area rated well or all convention -related
site selection criteria with the exception of zonvention facili-
ties and hotel accommodations. Therefore, Dade County can com-
pete effectively as a convention destination if meeting facili-
ties were expanded/upgraded and additional hotel rooms were pro-
vided. Hotel accommodations throughout the County, as well as
the concentration of rooms in Miami Beach and Miami, provide the
County with a strong competitive advantage.
2. Based on an elaborate market survey questionnaire which was com-
pleted as part of the Study, many association executives and me-
eting planners are sufficiently knowledgeable about Miami/Miami
Beach: and do distinguish the two cities. when asked if a prefer-
ence existed regarding the selection or an urban., or resort envi-
ronment as a convention destination, meeting planners indicated
urban. However, Miami Beach is considered an urban environment
with a resort itmcsahere.
3. Based on market `_actors, Laventhol believes that by 1986, 150,000
to 200,000 of square feet of exhibition space should be located
in the 'City of :Miami, and 440,000 square feet would be situated
in Miami Beach. These facil'ties should be compatible, rath•-r
than competitive. Of the 1,163 convention and trade shows re-
quiring exhibit space in 1?81, all but 6% required exhlbiti-:,n
space of less than 300,000 square feet.
4. The Report provides a detailed analysis cf six potential dc•.tintowr.
Miami site locations evaluated in matrix fashion based on tie fol-
lowing, weighted factors: Via) convenience and croximity to the
AP
INTER -OFFICE MB.�lORA:.DUM
70 HOWARD V. GARY
SEPTEMBER 12, 1183
PAGE 2
James L. Knight Center; (b) ease cf expansion; (c) compatib:e
Licvelopment potential; (d) convenience of parking; (e) lack of
ccngestiont (f) service accessi (g) access to public transporta-
tion,; (h) ease of property acquisition.
5. An evaluation of the compatibility of appr.priateness ofa MLlt=-
ase exhibition hall/arena/coliseum was specifically not included
in the Scope of Service3 in the County Agreement. This may be an
important issue for future evaluation especially since the lAgis-
lation authorizing the 3C Convention Development Tax (Florida Chap-
ter 212.057) requires that the Miami Sports i Exhibition Authority
.:se the proceeds "to construct a new multi -purpose convention/coli-
seu:i/exhibition center of the maximum components thereof as funds
permit in the most populous municipality in the county."
5. The Et-udy identifies four funding alternatives, three of which
Iin.Iuding the primary one) assume the issuance of revenue bonds
with the 34: Convention Development Tax used to pay off the debt.
:er.tatively, seco.,d reading of the County Ordinance levying the
tax is scheduled for the October 4 County Commission meeting.
T::e Study conc1L'es that the totz.1 Miam.L/Miami Beach Conventior.
Center Building program will gezcrate significant economic imijact.
In 1185, for example, the facilities a:e expected to generate
4,199 new Sobs, 594,820,000 in direct cunstruction return, and
S228,189,000 in dalegate expenditures.
8. The Study crncl'A" that a coordinated marketing cr3-,nization be created.
1-v C_ouncy, effectod municipalities, and the private tourism and hospitality
indL-stry weld be represented. It is'stressed that this or-ganization would
be established fitly of the Mi2mi Sports and Wi4biticn Authority,
and its counterpart an Miami Be uch, + !Uch, by sr --tote, „ tst be estate ished
to build and op --rats facilititm paid for by tt,e Cmirstr-ian L)mmlopmnt T,:x
(30 which would be levied by the C junty Ccnraissia).
cc: Hcn3rable Mayc;: and
Members of the City Commission
WitMP Wr +-