Miami sidetracks funds to restore Miami Marine Stadium

The Miami City Commission has put off reauthorizing bond funding to restore historic Miami Marine Stadium for several months.

The commission was to vote Feb. 24 to reauthorize issuance of bonds to help pay for long-awaited restoration. Instead, Commissioner Joe Carollo successfully deferred the vote after a lengthy explanation of why he wants to wait on restoration, which the commission originally approved in 2016.

The vote to defer to May 26 was unanimous.

The vote came after numerous audience members spoke in favor of reauthorizing funding and proceeding to bring the unique Virginia Key concrete stadium back to life.

At Mr. Carollo’s urging, City Manager Art Noriega was directed to study potential revenues and financial losses of proceeding with restoration and reopening the venue for concerts and other events.

More than five years have passed since the commission approved bond funding, yet no construction work has been done. For several years the city had been working toward restoring the stadium, closed since 1992’s Hurricane Andrew.

Talk of restoring it was just that for years, until November 2016, when the commission approved $45 million bond borrowing for renovation and improvements.

In January 2017 the commission hired R.J. Heisenbottle Architects for architectural and engineering services related to the stadium. The most recent status report listed estimated costs at $47,803,022.

The deferred vote would have declared official intent “to issue tax-exempt and taxable special obligation bonds in the expected total maximum principal amount of … $61.2 million in order to, among other things, reimburse itself from the proceeds of such special obligation bonds for funds advanced by the city for certain expenses incurred with respect to certain capital improvements projects at the Miami Marine Stadium and the associated Welcome Center and Museum Complex.”

Mr. Carollo cited increasing projected cost as a main concern. He said that several years ago when restoration was discussed he asked for a study of potential costs that he has yet to see.

“I have been asking for the administration … to give me a study to show how much we’re going to be losing, or if they think we’re going to make money, how much are we going to make, in a five-year projection. Nobody will give me that,” he said.

“I think nobody will give me that because the five-year projection is going to have to show losses every year. I also said … that this is not going to cost $45 million, that it was going to cost over $60 million minimum, and sure enough, I am right. Now we’re told it’s over $61 million. That’s an over 25% increase. And I submit to you that by the time it’s said and done it’s going to be over $70 million, if not more.

“So, I want to be able to give Mr. Noriega the opportunity to study this, to give us something solid, so that we know what we’re voting on. What is it truly going to cost and not a penny over, and how much is it going to cost every year, and the losses we’re going to have here,” Mr. Carollo said.

He suggested if it will be too costly, the commission could consider other site options, if allowed. The city owns much of the island, including Marine Stadium and the adjacent marinas.

Mr. Carollo later added, “It’s not that we don’t want to look back and enjoy history, but you can’t bring everything back again.”

The stadium is in Commissioner Ken Russell’s district and he responded to Mr. Carollo: “I’m encouraged to not have heard that you are against a restoration of Miami Marine Stadium. You want to get the numbers correct and make sure we’re doing the right thing and the smart thing. Because there is a lot of emotional support for it. My office has received almost 100 emails in support and zero against … I know we have already spent over $6 million on the restoration to make sure the foundation is shored up, and getting ready for the next part.”

Mr. Russell said studies have projected profitability for a reopened stadium by hosting about 15 concerts a year, but he said the venue would host much more than concerts, that it is also a sporting venue when coupled with the historic basin it fronts.

“I’m very much in favor of bringing the Marine Stadium back to life,” Mr. Russell said.

Commissioner Manolo Reyes agreed with Mr. Carollo’s request for a cost study. “We have to have very detailed projections of what revenues and costs (we have) … and during construction how long before we start recurring the money.

“Having said that, I believe that we should not destroy that stadium. We should do everything possible to restore it to its heydays. Not only because of emails we get but for the potential it has. It’s a unique stadium in the United States,” Mr. Reyes said.

Before the vote to defer the bonding resolution, the commission heard from many supporters of the resolution and the stadium’s restoration and preservation.

Don Worth, a co-founder of the group Restore Marine Stadium, said: “There’s nothing like Marine Stadium in all the world but the main reason to restore it is economic. The stadium gives Miami the bold new attraction, one of the five great open-air venues in the world, easily on par with places in America like the Hollywood Bowl in L.A. or Red Rocks in Colorado.

“Another important reason, with the exception of our beaches, most of our waterfront is accessible only to the wealthy. At the Marine Stadium everyone is a VIP, everyone has a water view seat. The stadium is beloved and iconic.

“Feasibility is vital. There is strong interest in operating Marine Stadium from experienced qualified facilities operators who see enormous potential,” Mr. Worth said.

The commission also heard support for restoration from architects, city residents, and representatives of the Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Latin Builders Association and Dade Heritage Trust.