October 28, 200421 yr http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...ll/10033107.htm MIAMI-DADE COUNTY Marlins offering $35M more for ballpark A Florida Marlins proposal increases the team's contribution toward a new stadium and raises the total project cost. BY BARRY JACKSON bjackson@herald.com In an effort to jump-start lagging negotiations, the Florida Marlins this week offered to increase their contribution toward a proposed retractable-roof stadium from $157 million to $192 million, a Miami-Dade County official said Wednesday night. The Marlins' proposal, sent to the county Tuesday and examined by county officials Wednesday, also raises the total cost of the project from $367 million to $420 million, including a $32 million parking garage. County officials consider the $420 million figure more realistic. While at least two major issues remain, county Tax Collector Ian Yorty said progress is being made toward a deal for a 38,000-seat ballpark adjacent to the Orange Bowl. ''We're optimistic we can reach an agreement,'' Yorty said. ``The county is committed to getting it done.'' The Marlins' proposal marks the first time in several months that the team has offered to increase its contribution, Yorty said. ''In an effort to fulfill [owner Jeffrey Loria's] desire to have a part in the saving of the franchise here in Florida, he wanted to once and for all allay concerns about the cost of the stadium by pre-funding potential overruns,'' Marlins President David Samson said. ``This would make it the fourth-highest contribution in all of baseball. . . . This is a deal that should be done quickly.'' The Marlins' proposal also asks for an additional $17 million from local government -- either the county or the city or both -- to cover land acquisition near the Orange Bowl and additional infrastructure costs. Yorty was unsure whether the county or city would accommodate that request. ''We're still looking at that,'' he said. OTHER ISSUES Still, two major issues remain. The county wants the Marlins to provide a letter of credit from a bank -- or other firm revenue sources -- to guarantee they can cover cost overruns. The Marlins' proposal this week does not include a letter of credit. ''They have proposed a cost overrun guarantee, but we still need more understanding of what it is,'' Yorty said. The $17 million sought by the Marlins in their latest proposal is in addition to the $30 million shortfall that already existed. The city, county and team are no longer discussing how to cover that missing $30 million and instead will try to secure the money from the Legislature next spring. The parties will try to forge a ''memorandum of understanding'' -- similar to an agreement in principle. As part of their proposal, the Marlins offered to increase their rent payments from $127 million to $162 million. The remaining $30 million of the Marlins' offer would come from team equity, including a ticket surcharge. The county has offered to contribute $120 million in hotel bed and sports facility taxes, including a portion from the sale of the Miami Arena. The city is contributing $28 million in tourist taxes and some land near the Orange Bowl and helping finance the parking garage. TIMING The Marlins would like to agree on a memorandum as soon as possible, but Samson said that's highly unlikely to happen by early next week. The Miami-Dade County mayoral election on Tuesday is not viewed as a major concern for the team. Although mayoral candidate Jimmy Morales -- unlike opponent Carlos Alvarez -- is opposed to using public financing toward stadiums, Morales said last week he would not veto the stadium deal as long as the team covers overruns and doesn't ``come back for more money.''
October 28, 200421 yr Im getting giddy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets Get it DONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 28, 200421 yr Everyone should feel more comfortable with the $420M estimate. In the earlier terms, the Marlins would have paid the differential anyway. Raising the estimate now just gives them a reason for asking the City/County for the additional $17M. It does appear they are getting much closer to inking a deal. MLB should step in and help out with the overrun guarantees....after all, they are intimately entwined in the issues making it difficult for the Marlins to get them....i.e. minority owner disputes,
October 28, 200421 yr I agree, MLB should help out here. Besides, the Marlins NEED to get this deal done and it is in the best interests of everyone to see the Marlins get their stadium.
October 28, 200421 yr Well Bud Selig's "Best interest of the game" only applies to screwing the Marlins, so I wouldn't be too quick to ask for his help. :glare :
October 28, 200421 yr If they'd drop this retractable roof nonsense, they'd have the deal done already.
October 28, 200421 yr Would you rather a solid roof?? Weather would drive too many fans to abort going to games.
October 28, 200421 yr If they'd drop this retractable roof nonsense, they'd have the deal done already. 603003[/snapback] They need a roof, and a retractable one is worth it.
October 28, 200421 yr But you dont need a roof. If we have our own stadium, they will get all the revenue instead of splitting it. Even if they averaged what they do now or did last year they would still make money instead of losing it.
October 28, 200421 yr Yeah, but they say (could be wrong) that a big reason for the low attendance is weather.
October 28, 200421 yr I heard it on the radio this morning on Lite 93.7 and was very happy. I told you all they would get it done. The team can always ask for incentives and rebates later to pay this.
October 28, 200421 yr If they'd drop this retractable roof nonsense, they'd have the deal done already. 603003[/snapback] A roof is an absolute necessary for the city and county to contribute the amount they are. They expect to use this facility in the offseason. A retractable dome allows them and the Marlins more options. For one, the option of not looking like the Devil Rays.
October 29, 200421 yr I would just want a regular roof instead of a retractable one.. might be to noisy
October 29, 200421 yr I would just want a regular roof instead of a retractable one.. might be to noisy 603325[/snapback] might be a complete piece of s***. :plain
October 29, 200421 yr the ballpark will have a retractable roof or it will not be built. all sides agree that without the roof, it will be useless. the roof will allow for an NCAA final four and other events that need large capacities and a roof to be played there. A bowl game could also be played there.
October 29, 200421 yr Would you rather a solid roof?? Weather would drive too many fans to abort going to games. 603032[/snapback] Wasn't that the point of getting a roof, so weather wouldn't be a factor in keeping fans away?
October 29, 200421 yr They need a roof, and a retractable one is worth it. A retractable roof is worth an additional $200 million in taxes to you? If they just did a straight dome, the Marlins could pay for 3/4 of it themselves.
October 29, 200421 yr A roof is an absolute necessary for the city and county to contribute the amount they are. They expect to use this facility in the offseason. A retractable dome allows them and the Marlins more options. For one, the option of not looking like the Devil Rays. I'm saying they should just build a domed stadium and forget a retractable dome. Just because the D-Rays built a crappy ballpark doesn't mean that a domed stadium has to look like crap. Stacked up against the domed stadiums of the '70s and '80s, Tropicana/Thunderdome still looks like crap.
October 29, 200421 yr They need a roof, and a retractable one is worth it. A retractable roof is worth an additional $200 million in taxes to you? If they just did a straight dome, the Marlins could pay for 3/4 of it themselves. 603723[/snapback] "...additional $200 million in taxes to you?" The monies used to build the stadium come almost exclusively from tourist and convention taxes that are collected primarliy from out of towners. Further, those taxes are earmarked for this kind of purpose and can't be used for things like building roads or schools, nor can they be used to augment the General Fund. BTW, your contention that $200 million could be shaved from the construction costs by building a domed rather than rectractable roofed stadium is seriously flawed. If you used a number of half that amount I might agree but your number is highly inflated.
October 29, 200421 yr BTW, your contention that $200 million could be shaved from the construction costs by building a domed rather than rectractable roofed stadium is seriously flawed. If you used a number of half that amount I might agree but your number is highly inflated. After cost overruns, it will easily hit $200 million. You don't realize how expensive it is to build an retractable roof. Regular domes are easily half the cost.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.