Strategy Development: Our Objectives (Phase I)€¦ · Web viewThe Port’s Development Program, including the 5-Year Master Plan and the 10- and 20-Year Vision Plans is, however,

2009 Port Everglades Master/Vision Plan _____ Element 6: Plan Implementation

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION6.1 IntroductionThis Element discusses implementation of the 2009 Port Everglades Master/Vision Plan, presents the Port’s 5-Year capital improvement plan (CIP), and summarizes the estimated costs of the Port’s complete 20-year development program.

6.2 Master Plan Impacts

As required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, port master plans must include an assessment of plan impacts such as vehicular traffic; utilities, including water, wastewater, and power; and environmental resources. The Consulting Team will quantify the detailed impacts of Plan implementation in Phase III. In Phase III, the current Deepwater Port Component of the Coastal Management Element and the Port-related goals, objectives, and policies in the Transportation Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan will be updated to reflect the contents of the 2009 Plan, specifically the Port’s 5- and 10-year maintenance and expansion program. Summarized below, however, in general terms are some of the positive traffic and environmental impacts that will result from the development program.

6.2.1 Traffic Impacts Resulting from Plan Implementation

The following traffic and circulation improvements will result from Plan implementation

Constructing the By-Pass Road will mitigate traffic congestion on U.S. 1, between Spangler Boulevard and 17th Street and on 17th Street between U.S. 1 and Eisenhower Boulevard.

Relocating the existing security gate on Eisenhower Drive further south will eliminate non-Port traffic from queuing at that gate.

Carving out the Broward County Convention Center from the Port’s secured area will eliminate the existing traffic that flows through the Port to and from the Center.

Routing buses, taxis, and privately owned vehicles (POVs) to/from Cruise Terminal 2 over the By-Pass Road rather than through the Port’s security gates will alleviate peak cruise traffic congestion.

Developing the intermodal container transfer facility (ICTF), programmed in the 5-Year Master Plan, to move containers by rail in lieu of by truck will eliminate 171,500 annual truck trips at full operational use.

Developing the crushed rock aggregate facility, programmed in the 10-Year Vision Plan, will allow some of Florida’s needs for this commodity to be fulfilled without generating additional truck trips. Since the rock will leave the Port by rail, the import of this commodity will not generate additional truck trips. The facility will transport 4 million tons of crushed rock by rail, rather than using the 200,000 trucks that would otherwise be

____________________________________________________________________________6-1


needed. The use of rail, therefore, will eliminate 400,000 truck trips to/from the Port and the regional roadway system.

Locating Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspection facility inside the secured Port area will reduce traffic through the Eller Drive gate.

Adding a new parallel road and cruise passenger intermodal center south of Cruise Terminal 19 will reduce taxi and POV traffic on East Eller Drive and eliminate bus traffic from that roadway segment.

Entering buses into a centralized intermodal facility at 19th Avenue, west of East Eller Drive, will reduce traffic on that roadway segment.

Reconfiguring the McIntosh Road alignment and road section with separate queue lanes and only right-hand turns into each container terminal will alleviate congestion on that critical road.

Developing the first phase of the cruise passenger intermodal center at Midport, programmed in the 10-Year Vision Plan, and the second phase, to be developed in the 20-Year Vision Plan, will have positive cumulative effects on the circulation of cruise-related vehicles. When fully completed, the center, comprising an integrated passenger intermodal zone, or at-grade ground transportation area, will provide a central location for the loading/unloading of buses, shuttles, and taxis. Above the ground transportation area will be structured parking for POVs. The intermodal center will eliminate buses traveling farther east on Eller Drive to alleviate traffic congestion in front of the cruise terminals on the Midport peninsula. Baggage trucks from Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) will both deliver and pick-up baggage directly at each cruise terminal. Provision trucks will also access the wharfs directly for each cruise terminal.

Vehicular and passenger circulation at the Midport cruise passenger intermodal center is illustrated in Figures 6.2-1 through 6.2-7; discussions of the respective circulation patterns precede each figure.

____________________________________________________________________________6-2


Bus Circulation. Buses from FLL will exit Eller Drive immediately upon turning onto 19th

Avenue. This movement will reduce traffic going further east on Eller Drive, eliminating the buses passing in front of Cruise Terminals 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 27. Exiting buses returning to FLL also will not pass in front of the same cruise terminals. Buses will unload passengers at a dedicated passenger island so that the buses face in the direction of the passengers’ intended destination, the Passenger Skyway, a network of connected air-conditioned concourses that are elevated above grade with moving walkways for passenger transportation. Passengers will not have to cross any roadways and will have direct access to escalators, elevators, and stairs on their way to the Passenger Skyway. Intuitive way-finding is the key in moving people.

____________________________________________________________________________6-3

Figure 6.2-1Bus Circulation Pattern


Privately Owned Vehicle Embarkation Circulation . POVs may directly enter the structured parking facility. Once their vehicles are parked, passengers may proceed to their cruise terminals by way of the elevated Passenger Skyway. Baggage in the POVs may be dropped off at each cruise terminal or at a POV covered unloading curb at the intermodal center, at grade south of Cruise Terminal 19. If dropped off at the center, the baggage will be transported to each terminal by truck.

____________________________________________________________________________6-4

Figure 6.2-2Privately Owned Vehicle Embarkation Circulation Pattern


Privately Owned Vehicle Debarkation Circulation . Passengers parking their POVs in the cruise passenger intermodal center may pick up their baggage in the intermodal center’s structured parking facility; the baggage will be brought to the center by truck from each terminal. Passengers will also have the option of picking up their baggage in front of each terminal and then exiting the Port.

____________________________________________________________________________6-5

Figure 6.2-3Privately Owned Vehicle Debarkation Circulation Pattern


Taxi Embarkation Circulation . Taxis may drop off their passengers at each cruise terminal and then exit the Port or return to a taxi-queuing lane. Two taxi-queuing lanes will be established: one along the widened Eller Drive and the second along the roadway to the south of Cruise Terminal 19. Taxis at the queuing lanes will await a radio dispatch to a terminal to pick-up their next passengers.

____________________________________________________________________________6-6

Figure 6.2-4Taxi Embarkation Circulation Pattern


Taxi Debarkation Circulation . Taxis may pick-up their passengers at each cruise terminal and then exit the Port.

____________________________________________________________________________6-7

Figure 6.2-5Taxi Debarkation Circulation Pattern

Figure 6.2-6Parking Structures


Parking Structures. The structured parking facility in the cruise passenger intermodal center will have a footprint and height capable of accommodating 4,000 plus vehicles. It is envisioned that both an ingress ramp helix and an egress ramp helix will best support the large volume of vehicles entering and exiting in short periods. Two additional parking structures with the combined capacity of 3,550 vehicles will be located to the east and west of Cruise Terminal 19. The parking structure to the south of the terminal will serve as overflow parking for the intermodal parking structure through a ramp connection on the top floor.

____________________________________________________________________________6-8


Cruise Passenger Circulation. Cruise passengers arriving at the cruise passenger intermodal center will move between the center and their respective cruise terminals via the Passenger Skyway.

The 10-Year Vision Plan also recommends the development of a cruise passenger intermodal center at the proposed parking structure west of Cruise Terminal 4 in Northport. The Northport intermodal center would serve Cruise Terminals 2 and 4.

Automated People Mover/Intermodal Center. Concurrently with the preparation of this Master/Vision Plan, Port Everglades and FLL, in conjunction with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jointly conducted a Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study for the Broward County Intermodal Center (IMC) and Automated People Mover (APM) system, followed by an Environmental Assessment, which is 95 percent complete. A public hearing of the Environmental Assessment was held in June 2009; but, since August 2009, the process has been on hold, pending development of a complete funding plan. Once potential funding is identified, the County and FDOT may restart the process and proceed to obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which would then allow the County to seek federal funds for the project.

The Port’s Master and Vision Plans are compatible with the recommended alternative for the APM system and right-of-way for the system has been preserved on Port property. The two

____________________________________________________________________________6-9

Figure 6.2-7Passenger Circulation Pattern


proposed stations for a future APM coincide with both the Midport and Northport cruise passenger intermodal centers. The APM station at Northport will serve the Broward County Convention Center as well as Cruise Terminals 2 and 4 (see the APM documentation in Appendix D).

6.2.2 Environmental Impacts

Natural Resources: Vegetative Cover, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitats. Element 1, prepared in Phase I, provides a detailed discussion of the various natural resources in the Port environs. The discussion below expands on that discussion to reflect the effects of the Port’s 5-Year Master Plan and 10-Year Vision Plan.

Seagrasses. The waters surrounding Port Everglades provide habitat for a variety of seagrasses, including Halophila johnsonni (Johnson’s grass), Halophila decipiens (Paddle grass), and Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal grass). In 1998, H. johnsonni was listed as an endangered marine plant. Adverse impacts to seagrasses are regulated in the same manner as mangroves and other coastal wetland plants by federal, state, and county environmental protection agencies.

In 2009, seagrass distribution was mapped for the Port Everglades harbor area by Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc. to update information from 2006. Comparison of the 2009 seagrass mapping results (see Figure 6.2-8) and the draft Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) outlined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (see Figure 6.2-9), indicates that seagrass distribution in the Port area will be directly impacted by activities associated with the 10-Year Vision Plan.

Based on preliminary evaluations, widening of the Southport Access Channel, as well as the corner, or Widener, section on the northeast end of the Southport Access Channel will directly impact approximately 2 to 3 acres of Johnson’s grass and Paddle grass. Mitigation credits will be allocated from the West Lake Park comprehensive restoration project discussed in Element 5 to offset impacts associated with the deepening and widening of Port channels.

In addition to the direct impacts, any secondary impacts resulting from proposed deepening and widening activities would also be subject to regulation. Regulation may include, but not be limited to, turbidity containment efforts and monitoring during those activities.

____________________________________________________________________________6-10


Figure 6.2-8Seagrass Distribution

____________________________________________________________________________6-11


Figure 6.2-9Port Everglades Draft Tentatively Selected Plan

Wetlands. The ACOE, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the Broward County Environmental Protection & Growth Management Division (BCEP&GMD) regulate any dredging and filling activity within mangrove habitats. It is the purpose and intent of these agencies to ensure no net loss in the function and value of existing wetland habitats. Therefore, any adverse impacts to existing mangroves are regulated by avoidance as the first priority, minimization as the second priority, and mitigation as the third priority.

Mangroves are the dominant wetland plant species at Port Everglades. A large mangrove stand is located to the west and north of the Southport Turning Notch. This area is encumbered by a 57-acre Conservation Easement issued to FDEP.

As discussed in Element 5, the Port has obtained FDEP approval to initiate procedures for the eventual release of 8.7 acres of the existing easement and deepen that area to expand the Turning Notch and create additional dock space. Phase 1 of the Southport Turning Notch expansion project, which is limited to expansion of the area at the existing water depth, is included in the 5-Year Master Plan. Also included in the 5-Year Master Plan is the proposed creation of approximately 16.5 acres of mangrove wetlands within uplands adjacent to the Southport Turning Notch to replace the 8.7-acre easement being released. In addition, ____________________________________________________________________________6-12


mitigation credits will be allocated from the West Lake Park comprehensive restoration project, to offset impacts associated with the Turning Notch expansion.

Listed Species. The Port is committed to addressing the protection of wildlife within its property and along the waterways. This commitment includes implementation of federal, state, county, and local species protection plans, adherence to special construction techniques and/or guidelines that address wildlife concerns, and participating in scientific programs associated with resource protection.

The following listed species have been reported in the Port Everglades area (see Figure 1.12-4 in Element 1):

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii). Three species of sea turtles—loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas),

and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Wood stork (Mycteria americana). Small-toothed sawfish (Pristis pectinata). Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Least tern (Sterna antillarum). Peregrine falcon (Falco perigrinus). White ibis (Eudocimus albus). Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata). Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis).

The waters surrounding Port Everglades also serve as habitat for the West Indian manatee, a federally endangered species. The “Manatee Season” extends from November 15 through March 31 and marks the primary migratory period for manatees from northern winter waters to the warmer waters along Florida’s southern coast to avoid sustained cold fronts. The Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 established the entire state of Florida as a “refuge and sanctuary for the manatees” and allowed for the enforcement of boat-speed regulations in manatee-designated protection zones. The West Indian manatee is protected federally by both the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Port Everglades is one of about two dozen manatee wintering sites designated as manatee protection zones.

Manatees congregate in the vicinity of the Port at locations such as the FPL Discharge Canal and Intracoastal Waterway next to the existing conservation easement. Manatees also utilize portions of West Lake Park south of the Port property. Points in Figure 1.12-4 labeled as “Manatees Reported” reflect sites where multiple sightings have occurred while points labeled as “Manatee Reported’ reflect one single sighting.

Removal of the dry-stack boat storage facility from its site on the FPL Discharge Canal eliminated the 400 boats that previously entered the warm waters of the Discharge Canal to access the facility. The elimination of this boat traffic helps safeguard both the manatees and their young who frequent these waters and the manatee nursery in this portion of the Canal. ____________________________________________________________________________6-13


Many steps are being taken to protect the West Indian manatee during dredging projects and from routine boating traffic in the canals. The Port’s dredge protection plan includes these guidelines to ensure manatee protection:

Contractors are informed of manatee permit stipulations and life history traits prior to construction.

A safety zone in which all work ceases upon sighting of a manatee is established approximately 300 yards from a drill or blast rig.

Manatee observers and side-scan sonar are utilized to monitor the presence of manatees within safety zones.

Manatee warning signs are placed on all waterborne equipment.

All water traffic proceeds at slow speed.

Appropriate agencies are contacted in the event of injury or death to manatee individuals.

Other initiatives include year-round recording of manatee sightings on observation logs, installation of manatee-grating devices on outfall pipes, installation of fenders on the sides of vessels which provide adequate space at berth to prevent the wedging of manatees between the dock and hull of a vessel, prohibiting recreational access to the FPL Discharge Canal, and supporting manatee research. In addition, the approximately 16.5-acre mangrove easement created in the 5-Year Master Plan will provide a buffer between upland Port activities and the area most frequented by manatees.

The Port also continues to protect the endangered sea turtle species that utilize the nearby waters and beaches. The Port has changed its lighting arrangements; installation of lighting shields on docks in the 5-Year Master Plan and the 10-Year and 20-Year Vision Plans will reduce hatchling mortality by allowing turtles to orient quickly to the ocean’s reflected light. A more detailed discussion of the Port’s lighting changes is provided in the Beach and Dune Systems section later in this Element.

Coral. The Outer Entrance Channel, which leads into Port Everglades from the Atlantic Ocean, acts as habitat for coral species such as Siderastrea siderea and Stephanocoenia intersepta. The hard-bottom areas further off shore exhibit live growth, with turf algae being the most dominant, followed by macro-algae, sponges, octocorals, scleractinians, zonathids, and tunicates. The system exhibits less than 1 percent live coral growth. This marine habitat is regulated by federal, state, and county environmental protection agencies. In addition, two Acropora coral species were listed in 2006 as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act and critical habitat was designated in 2008 along the outer edge of the Port’s Entrance Channel.

Benthic assessments performed in September 2007 for the sand bypass project located directly north of Port Everglades included an assessment for the presence of Acropora coral colonies at 20 different locations within the study area. These included sites along the northern border of the Port’s Entrance Channel. The study documented live Acropora coral colonies at 3 out of the ____________________________________________________________________________6-14


20 sites surveyed. The colonies were located in the northwest portion of the study area, about 0.25 miles northwest of the Entrance Channel. In addition, hard-bottom habitat assessments performed at Port Everglades documented high coverages of turf algae and less than 1 percent live coverage for other species of coral (see section 1.12.7 of Element 1 for more details

In their final rule, National Marine Fisheries Service documented that macroalgae and turf algae prevent the settlement of larvae and the reattachment of fragments needed for Acropora settlement and recruitment. This suggests that conditions are not optimal at the Port for colonization of Acropora coral species. Port Everglades will continue to monitor the effects that Port actions have on Acropora corals and their critical habitat and will make every effort to ensure that these species are protected to the extent practicable.

Wildlife Habitat. The waters and lands in and around Port Everglades provide habitat for a variety of plants and animal wildlife. Numerous species of mammals, fish, and birds take refuge in the mangroves, canals, and trees that surround the Port. Impacts to these habitats are strictly controlled by federal, state, county, and local regulations. The waters to the south of the Port, including the waters bordering West Lake Park and the Dania Cut-Off Canal, are considered essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2002 (67 FR 2343). These essential fish habitats supply the necessary waters and substrate to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity.

Widening the navigation channels with environmentally friendly bulkheads, that is, bulkheads that do not penetrate the water surface, wherever possible, will allow tidal flows to be maintained at the shoreline and critical habitat areas.

The Port will also continue to participate in the Broward County Reef Tire Removal Program, a joint venture between county, state, and federal entities which will remove from nearby coastal waters approximately 700,000 tires originally intended to form artificial reef habitat.

Coastal Flooding: Mangroves, Stormwater, Sea-Level Rise. Changes in sea level have the potential to massively reconfigure geomorphology, change tidal variation, alter salinity patterns, and impact ecological processes in South Florida’s coastal habitats, including wetlands, mangrove forests, and seagrass beds.

Though sea-level rise rates have historically been measured from 5 to 10 centimeters per 100 years, that rate has accelerated tenfold in the past hundred years. With the influences of global climate change, sea levels are predicted to rise 0.5 feet by 2050 and 1.1 feet by 2100. The effects of that rate of change may not be inherently visible within the constraints of the Port’s 20-Year Vision Plan, but it is imperative that long-term planning strategies look toward the future.

To anticipate the eventual effects of global climate change on the Port’s shoreline, BCEP&GMD mapped the incremental effects of sea level increases adjacent to the Port, identifying areas at risk for sea level rise in one-foot increments; up to three feet. Most of the areas shown affected by the rise are low lying with existing vegetation; including mangroves in the environmentally protected areas. Also affected by sea level rise are the shallow seagrass beds present in various locations in the vicinity of the Port.

____________________________________________________________________________6-15


Mangroves. Mangrove communities are highly productive systems, providing valuable habitat for fisheries, shorebirds, marine mammals, snakes, and crocodiles. Many of the world’s marine species, including important coastal fisheries, rely on coastal wetlands for at least part of their life cycle. The complex root systems of mangroves serve as refuge for large numbers of species, as well as providing stabilization for sediments, thereby reducing coastal erosion and improving water clarity. Coastal mangrove tracts can provide protection from storm surges to adjacent land and human populations, and prevent damage to freshwater ecosystems and agricultural areas from saltwater intrusion.

As sea levels rise, the seaward and landward margins of the mangrove community migrate inland to maintain their preferred environmental conditions, including period, frequency and depth of inundation; and salinity. Depending on the ability of mangrove species to colonize new habitat at a rate that keeps pace with the rate of relative sea level rise, the slope of adjacent land, and the presence of obstacles to landward migration such as seawalls and other shoreline protection structures, some sites will revert to a narrow mangrove fringe or experience loss of the mangrove community altogether (Gilman et al., 2006).

Sea level rise has a direct impact on the frequency and duration of inundations and drying periods of coastal mangrove wetlands, which support a community of small marsh fishes critical as a food source to wading birds such as wood storks, egrets, and roseate spoonbills. Regular periods of water level recession serve to concentrate the fish assemblages in densities adequate to support wading bird nesting.

Landward salinity intrusion is another impact of higher sea levels in coastal wetlands. It is a major factor limiting distribution and abundance of various fish species, submerged aquatic vegetation, and estuarine alligator and crocodile populations.

Based on BCEP&GMD’s analysis, a one-foot rise in sea level will impact the vast majority of mangrove communities in the Port area. Development of the land surrounding the mangrove pockets in Port Everglades prevents the natural landward migration of the mangrove communities with rising sea levels; however, the projected time frame for a one-foot sea level rise exceeds that of even the 20-Year Vision Plan.

Seagrasses. A major impact on seagrasses of changes resulting from sea level rise will be the redistribution of existing habitats. Distribution changes will result from the effects of salinity change on seed germination, propagule formation, photosynthesis, growth, and biomass (Short and Neckles, 1999).

Changes in water depth also impact the flow patterns and deposition of sediments in and around seagrass beds. Alteration of the sediment composition is expected to cause shifts in community structure. Some species have been shown to persist in nutrient-rich sediments high in organic content, whereas others occur in patches characterized by more sandy sediments. An increase in the deposition of sandy beach and offshore sediments in seagrass beds can be expected to promote a shift in species composition.

Increased water depth will impact the amount of light reaching existing seagrass beds, thereby affecting productivity, and could result in community decline.

____________________________________________________________________________6-16


Underground Stormwater Systems. Other areas that could be affected by the rise in sea level are the underground stormwater management systems consisting of exfiltration piping and trenches that are used to filter surface water runoff. These systems need to be above the water table to filter pollutants from the stormwater runoff. Underground exfiltration systems are typically used in paved parking areas and container storage yards to maximize the paved area for use by port operations.

Global Climate Change Initiatives. The Port’s proactive response to the threats of global climate change is to develop a program to reduce its carbon emissions and monitor the effect of program initiatives. Many of the components of the Port’s Green Port Program and other endeavors are already oriented towards this objective and will continue to be expanded as new information becomes available.

The Port continues to explore methods of reducing the amount of solid and liquid waste generated during operations by implementing a variety of recycling and waste reduction programs. Currently, the Port is recycling glass, plastic, colored and white paper, waste oil, absorbent rags, spent absorbent, batteries, tires, fluorescent tubes, print cartridges, and cardboard in the administrative building and are expanding these initiatives to other buildings and terminals. With waste reduction in mind, the Port has eliminated the use of mineral spirits. All communication is now done electronically to reduce paper waste, recyclable goods are preferably used, car stops are plastic instead of cement, and no aerosols are used on Port property.

The recently approved Broward County Climate Change Action Plan provides direction for the Port and other county agencies on critical issues to consider in the context of climate change, including specific action items that effect immediate planning at the Port.

The first action item, Action PC-1.2 Support Broward County Government Operations greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts , is related to the ongoing Government Operations Workgroup efforts directed at mitigating greenhouse gases to slow the impact of climate change. Many of the action items in the Green Port Program are likely to be supportive of this action item, which includes addressing baseline and carbon footprints; educating employees; identifying sources for future grants; and providing/advising/encouraging sustainability actions, best management practices, and energy efficiency for all Broward County government operations.

In September 2010, FDEP awarded Port Everglades a $750,000 Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) grant. With an additional contribution from the Port and the Port pilots, the Port will use these DERA funds to retrofit, upgrade, or replace diesel engines to reduce emissions. Upgrading the Port’s engines will result in healthier air at the Port and in surrounding communities.

The second action item, Action PC-2.1 Support local, regional and state planning entities in mitigation and adaptation plans, addresses planning activities related to mitigation and adaptation plans. It states that Broward County should support planning entities and programs in their efforts to develop and coordinate regional tools and planning documents that integrate

____________________________________________________________________________6-17


regional climate change mitigation and adaptation goals into their planning processes. Among the planning entities and programs listed in the action item are the Port and Airport Master Plans.

The third action item supports one of the Infrastructure Master Planning Goals in the Action Plan. This is directed at adapting to the inevitable impacts of climate change to create a climate-resilient government and sustainable community. The goal of this item is to ensure that adaptation to climate change impacts, especially sea level rise, are incorporated into the planning, siting, construction, replacement, and maintenance of public infrastructure in a manner that is cost-effective and maximizes expected infrastructure life span.

Action IP-1.3 Inventory the County-owned infrastructure at risk and assess climate change impacts states that Broward County should inventory the County-owned public works infrastructure at risk from the impacts of climate change. This assessment should be incorporated into the infrastructure master planning process; and should include the impact of sea level rise and other adaptation impacts on all public investments, and identification of vulnerabilities to produce strategies for mitigation and adaptation, and a determination as to whether, when, and where projected impacts from climate change might be significant. Among the areas to be included in these analyses are critical airport and seaport infrastructures.

Estuarine Pollution Sources: Oil Spills, Air Emissions. Reducing traffic congestion and trip generation as part of the 5-Year Master Plan, as described in the preceding narrative, will reduce air emissions throughout the Port and the region. Importing crushed rock aggregate will reduce the existing environmental issues with the present quarries in Florida. The new facility, planned at the Port as part of the 10-Year Vision Plan, will be enclosed for dust containment and not generate any air pollutants from the rock.

Also within the 10-Year Vision Plan, expanding the three slips at Northport and reducing the widths of Piers 1 and 2, will remove a portion of the petroleum contamination currently contained within the Pier bulkheads. Any remaining product will be contained within new bulkheads with greater lifespan and durability.

Beach and Dune Systems: 5-, 10-, 20-Year. The beaches and dunes along the eastern margin of the Port have long been recognized as sea turtle nesting grounds. Coastal lighting in developed areas has been shown to impact the activities of nesting turtles, prompting changes to and reduction of the Port’s lighting systems. To reduce interaction with crawling and nesting turtles along the beach adjacent to the Port, changes have been made to reduce the intensity of lights in the Midport area visible from the park to the east. Dockside lighting at Berths 24 through 27 and 29, both pole- and building-mounted, have been adjusted downward to safely light the dock areas while limiting scatter.

Circuits have been reconfigured with controls added to the building automation system for the roof-level parking deck at Terminal 29, the Midport parking garage, and the decorative lighting on the Harbormaster Tower. Lighting in these facilities as well as in the planned new garage is scheduled to remain fully turned off when not in use for the duration of turtle nesting season.

____________________________________________________________________________6-18


Reducing lighting in Southport is more challenging because the high-mast lights are either on or off. Nevertheless, the Port continues to look for further opportunities to reduce or redirect lighting where it can be done without affecting safety and security, and remains committed to reducing lighting and accounting for new lighting technologies for any new construction.

6.3 Plan Costs and Funding6.3.1 Project-Decision Matrices

As discussed in Section 4.3, the Project-Decision Matrix was utilized to make Go/No Go decisions in placing Master Plan projects into the 5-Year CIP. The 5-Year CIP presented in this Element has been developed with Port staff and represents a program that is capable of being implemented within the established time frame. Projects in the 5-Year CIP were selected because of their qualifications as “sustainable” and “value-added.” “Value-added” means the projects provide added value to the Port. “Sustainable” refers to the projects’ contribution to social (i.e., economic impacts identified in the Plan) and environmental factors in addition to the traditional return on investment dollars.

Also as discussed in Section 4.3, the Project-Decision Matrix comprises six sensitivities:

Project Cost. Return on Incremental Investment (ROI). Net Present Value (NPV). Economic Impact. Environmental Impact. Customer/Regulatory Need.

Tables 6.3-1 through 6.3-5 summarize the Project-Decision Matrix findings for the following five key projects incorporated in the 5-Year CIP:

Cruise Terminal 4 Redevelopment. Cruise Terminals 2, 19, 21, 26 Expansion. ICTF Development. Cruise Terminal 18 Parking Garage. Southport Turning Notch Expansion.

Table 6.3-1Decision Matrix: Cruise Terminal 4 Redevelopment

____________________________________________________________________________6-19

Cruise Terminal 4 (CT-4) Redevelopment

Total Income (000's) Jobs

Taxes (000's) High Mid Low

Permit Required High Mid Low

$13M 14.7% $8.1M $33,927 710 $2,511 X X

Customer / Regulatory Needs Economic Impact Environmental Impact

Total Project Cost ROI

Net Present

Value


Table 6.3-2Decision Matrix: Cruise Terminals 2, 19, 21, and 26 Expansion

Cruise Terminals 2, 19, 21, 26 Expansion (Base Case at Minimum Guaranteed Volume)




$34M 14.2% $25.7M $293,630 6,062 $21,729 X X

Economic Impact Environmental Impact Customer /

Regulatory Needs

ROI

Net Present

ValueTotal Project Cost

Table 6.3-3Decision Matrix: ICTF Development

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Development (Overall Project)




$42M 12.3% $31.9M $154,699 2,188 $11,448 X X


Regulatory Needs


Net Present

Value

Table 6.3-4Decision Matrix: Cruise Terminal 18 Parking Garage Construction

Cruise Terminal 18 (CT-18) Parking Garage Construction (1600 Spaces Garage)




$32M 5.6% $2.4M $728 18 $67 X X


Regulatory Needs


Net Present

Value

Table 6.3-5Decision Matrix: Southport Turning Notch Expansion

Detailed information on the project costs for these five projects is provided in Appendix C, ROI and NPV data are provided in Appendix G, and economic impact information is provided in Appendix H

Based on the information available, four of the five projects appear to have minimal environmental impacts with no known environmental permit requirements:

The proposed cruise terminal redevelopment and expansion (Cruise Terminals 2, 4, 19, 21, and 26 and the parking garage at Cruise Terminal 18), are to be conducted within existing footprints, none of which currently contain natural resources.

The ICTF development is proposed on a vacant land separated from protected mangroves by the proposed crushed rock facility and FPL’s power line relocation easement.

____________________________________________________________________________6-20

Southport Turning Notch Expansion




$96M 6.9% $14.3M $393,143 5,529 $29,092 X X X

Customer / Regulatory Needs

Total Construction Cost ROI

Net Present

Value

Economic Impact Environmental Impact


Based on the above conclusions, a LOW Environmental Impact rating was assigned to these four capital projects.

The Southport Turning Notch Expansion will, however, create the previously discussed environmental impacts, to be offset by the new mangrove creation and West Lake Park mitigation programs. Deepening of the Turning Notch will require environmental resource permits from the ACOE and FDEP with coordination required with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A spoil disposal permit from EPA will also be required for an off-shore disposal site. These requirements result in a MEDIUM Environmental Impact rating for the Turning Notch project.

With respect to the Customer/Regulatory Needs category, the cruise terminal expansion and parking garage are all dependent on customer need, resulting in a HIGH rating for these projects. The Southport Turning Notch Expansion received a HIGH rating because of the immediate need to increase the Port’s cargo-handling berth capacity, based on the market forecast. Also, the ICTF project was assigned a MEDIUM rating for this category based on the market forecast for intermodal cargo at the Port.

6.3.2 5-Year Capital Improvement PlanThe 5-Year Plan identifies the infrastructure the Port needs to meet the 5-year projected market demand and the locations of the respective infrastructure components. This infrastructure has been further translated into specific construction projects with project costs and the years in which each project is needed. The project costs for design/inspection services and construction have then been scheduled for one of the five fiscal years, 2011 through 2015, in the CIP.

The 5-Year CIP lists the project costs in four categories; namely:

01 General Infrastructure. 02 Master Plan Projects. 03 ACOE Dredging Project. 04 Other Port Capital Improvements (Maintenance, Renewal, and Replacement).

The 01 General Infrastructure and 04 Other Port Capital Improvements (Maintenance, Renewal, and Replacement) categories consist of limited scope projects of a maintenance and infrastructure renewal nature. The 02 Master Plan Projects category includes the projects that have been identified by this master planning program and are needed to meet the projected market demands. The 03 ACOE Dredging Project consists of projects that will result from the ACOE Deepening and Widening Study, currently in progress, and will consist of both the federal share and non-federal share costs.

The cost of the 02 Master Plan Projects in the CIP ($356.530 million) is not the same as the total cost of the projects identified in the 5-Year Master Plan ($453.08 million) in Element 5 because of differences in how projects are built into the CIP. For example, in the CIP, the cost of Cruise Terminals 2, 19, 21 and 26 is considered under the 04 Other Port Capital Improvements category without considering the design fees associated with them. Also, the Element 5 Master Plan projects considered $4 million for ACOE deepening and widening design ____________________________________________________________________________6-21

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TotalGeneral Infrastructure 6.550 8.550 7.550 7.550 7.550 37.750 Master Plan Projects 43.350 80.882 80.248 103.750 48.300 356.530 ACOE Dredging Project - 0.500 0.500 - 20.000 21.000 Other Port Capital Improvements 44.304 13.898 15.993 7.953 7.787 89.935 Total 94.204 103.830 104.291 119.253 83.637 505.215

FY 2011 to 2015, 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan ($ Millions)


fees and $20 million for ACOE deepening and widening construction, both of which are categorized under the 03 ACOE Dredging Project category in the CIP. In addition, the Element 5 Master Plan Projects used the total cost of $36 million for the By-Pass Road (Phases 1 and 2) whereas the CIP only accounts for the unfunded amount of $6 million and $10.95 million in grant funds for the project in the 02 Master Plan Projects Category.

As can be seen in the FY 11–FY 15 CIP provided in Table 6.3-8, which has been modified based on this 2009 Master/Vision Plan Update, some projects do not indicate programming/design or construction funds. The reason for this is that several projects have funds previously budgeted in earlier CIPs:

The Midport Parking Garage had $1.4 million budgeted for programming/design in FY 09.

Cruise Terminal 4 had $500,000 budgeted for programming/design in FY 06.

The Spangler Boulevard Bypass Road had $20 million funded equally between the Port and the Convention Center for programming/design and construction in FY 09.

The McIntosh Road Realignment project had $5.393 million budgeted for programming/design in FY 08.

The programming/design for Cruise Terminals 2, 19, 21 and 26 in the amount of $2.945 million was funded through a reallocation of funds in FY 10 and the design for the Tracor Basin Finger Pier Replacement has a work authorization under a general engineering contract in the amount of $350,000 which will be funded through miscellaneous infrastructure funds.

Over the five-year period, the project costs in each of the four categories are:

01 General Infrastructure $37.750 million. 02 Master Plan Projects $356.530 million. 03 ACOE Dredging Project $21.000 million. 04 Other Port Capital Improvements $89.935 million.

The total CIP cost over the five fiscal years is $505.215 million, as summarized in Table 6.3-6 and Figure 6.3-1.

Table 6.3-65-Year Capital Improvement Plan Summary

____________________________________________________________________________6-22

6.550 8.550 7.550 7.550 7.550

43.350

80.882 80.248

103.750

48.300

-

0.500 0.500

-

20.000 44.304

13.898 15.993

7.953

7.787

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Tota

l Pro

ject

s Cos

t ($

Mill

inos

)

General Infrastructure Master Plan Projects ACOE Dredging Project Other Port Capital Improvements


Figure 6.3-15-Year Capital Improvement Plan

The CIP also identifies the project funding sources. The five funding sources are

Internal Funding; identified by (I, CR/I). Previous Internal Funding; identified by (PF). Future Grants; identified by (G). Potential Debt; identified by (U, CR/U) Private Investment; identified by (P).

Internal Funding (I, CR/I) consists of net revenue from existing Port operations, plus net revenue from Port operations as a result of new projects constructed in the five-year period, plus cost recovery charges paid to the Port, plus reallocated funds from previous projects, less debt service charges.

Previous Internal Funding (PF) consists of funds that have been allocated to a project from previous CIPs which have not been expended.

Future Grants (G) consist of those grants that have not been expended from past years and grants that have been secured for expenditure within the five-year period.

____________________________________________________________________________6-23

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TotalInternal Funding (I, CR/I) 24.829 38.666 47.137 39.317 17.266 167.215 Previous Internal Funding (PF) 28.575 - - - - 28.575 Future Grants (G) 3.300 20.216 15.000 7.936 16.371 62.823 Potential Debt (U, CR/U) - - 27.000 72.000 50.000 149.000 Private Investment (P) 37.500 44.948 15.154 - - 97.602 Total 94.204 103.830 104.291 119.253 83.637 505.215

FY 2011 to 2015, 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan ($ Millions)


Potential Debt (U, CR/U) is the amount of the CIP that is currently unfunded, but may be available through potential debt service.

Private Investment (P) consists of the estimated participation in the cost of infrastructure improvements by tenants /stakeholders. This cost has been added to the CIP since these private investment projects add value to the Port’s infrastructure base and become a base for the Port to derive net revenue.

The projected amounts, over the five-year period, for each of the four funding sources are:

Internal Funding (I, CR/I) $167.215 million. Previous Internal Funding (PF) $28.575 million. Grants (G) $62.823 million. Potential Debt (U, CR/U) $149.000 million. Private Investment (P) $97.602 million.

These five funding sources total $505.215 million over the fiscal period, the sum of the 5-year CIP, as summarized in Table 6.3-7 and Figure 6.3-2.

Table 6.3-7Funding Sources of 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan

Table 6.3-8, on the following pages, details the Port’s proposed 5-Year CIP for FY 2011 through FY 2015 with the funding source for each project identified over the five-year timeframe.

____________________________________________________________________________6-24


Figure 6.3-2Funding Sources of 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan

____________________________________________________________________________6-25

24.829

38.666 47.137

39.317

17.266

28.575 -

-

-

-

3.300

20.216 15.000

7.936

16.371

27.000

72.000

50.000

37.500

44.948

15.154

-

-

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Tota

l Fun

ding

($ M

illin

os)

Internal Funding (I, CR/I) Previous Internal Funding (PF) Future Grants (G) Potential Debt (U, CR/U) Private Investment (P)

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN WORKSHEETFISCAL YEARS 2011-2015

FY 11 DEPT. TOTALPROJ FUND CODE UNIT NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5-YEAR

ID FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 COST

GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES 011001 4710 6510 Port Infrastructure Improvements

475 Annual Miscellaneous Infrastructure Improvements 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 2.500Annual Utility Infrastructure Improvements

475 Seaport Engineering 0.250 I 0.250 I 0.250 I 0.250 I 0.250 I 1.250470 Operations 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 1.500475 Bulkhead Retrofit & Replacement 2.500 I 5.000 I 5.000 I 5.000 I 5.000 I 22.500475 Fire Suppression System for Piers 1 & 2 1.500 I/G 1.500

DHS Grant (FY 11) 1.125Port Funds (FY 11) 0.375

475 Replace Water Mains at Berths 5-16 1.000 I 1.000

1002 4710 6550 Fender, Mooring & Bollard Improvements470 Annual Fender, Mooring & Bollard Improvements 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 2.500

1003 Port Capital Maintenance4710 475 6530 Annual Capital Maintenance 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 5.000

MASTER PLAN PROJECTS 02Midport Improvements

2007 4710 6354 Midport Parking Garage475 Construction 16.000 I/U 16.000 U 32.000

Port Funds (FY 13) 6.500Port Bond Funds (FY 13) 9.500

Tracor Basin Finger Pier Replace with Catwalk + DolphinConstruction 5.200 I 5.200

Northport Improvements

2011 4710 6549 Cruise Terminal No. 4 Expansion Construction 8.500 CR/I 4.500 CR/I 13.000

2022 4710 N/A Northport Petroleum Terminal (former Molasses Tanks) 37.500 P 37.500 P 75.000Private Investment (FY 11) 37.500Private Investment (FY 12) 37.500

2021 4710 6510 Slip 2 ExpansionDesign 1.000 I 0.500 I 1.500Construction 5.750 CR/I 15.750 CR/I 21.500

2009 4710 6830 Spangler Boulevard Bypass Road - Phase 2FDOT TRIP Grant (FY 12) 10.950 10.950 G 6.000 U 16.950

Slip 1 New Bulkheads at Berth 9 and 10 - Phase 1Design 3.000 I 1.500 I 4.500Construction 20.500 G/U 30.000 U 50.500

FDOT SIS Grant (FY 13) 3.000Port Bond Funds (FY 13) 17.500

Southport Improvements2014 4710 6891 Southport Turning Notch Expansion - Contract 1

Design 6.436 I/G 0.644 I 7.080FSTED 311 (DPTO/Port) Grant (FY 12) 3.218

Port Funds (FY 12) 3.218Construction 30.000 U/G 30.000 U/G 60.000

FSTED 311 (DPTO/Port) Grant (FY 14) 3.218FDOT DPTO/GM Grant (FY 14) 4.718

Port Bond Funds (FY 14) 22.064FDOT DPTO/DS/GM Grant (FY 15) 13.246

FSTED 311 (DPTO/Port) Grant (FY 15) 3.125Port Bond Funds (FY 15) 13.629

Southport Turning Notch Expansion - Contract 2Design 2.500 I 2.500

Mitigation for Westlake Improvements Design 1.200 I 1.200 Construction 6.300 I/U 6.300 I/U 12.600



2016 4710 8100 ICTF Facility (Rail + Yard)475 Design 1.350 I/G 3.000 G/P 4.350

FDOT DPTO/GM Grant (FY 11) 0.675Port Funds (FY 11) 0.675

Construction 10.496 G/P 10.496FDOT DPTO/GM Grant (FY 12) 6.048

Private Investment (FY 12) 7.448FDOT DPTO/GM Grant (FY 13) 12.000 27.154 G/P 27.154

Private Investment (FY 13) 15.154

Container CraneDesign 0.500 I 0.500Construction 6.000 U 6.000

2017 4710 6883 McIntosh Loop RoadConstruction 4.500 I 4.500


____________________________________________________________________________6-26

Table 6.5-3Table 6.6-75-Year CIP($ millions)

Table 6.3-85-Year Capital Plan Worksheet

($ millions)




3001 4710 475 6790 ACOE DREDGING PROJECT 03Design 0.500 I 0.500 I 1.000Construction 20.000 U 20.000

OTHER PORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (Maintenance, Renewal & Replacement) 044001 4710 475 6563 CAPITALIZED INTEREST 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 1.500

4002 4710 6565 Consulting Architectural/Engineering Services475 General Architectural/Engineering Services 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 1.500

4003 4710 6526 Renew/Replacement Equipment 1.004 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 5.004470 Crane 0.010

Portable Welder 0.010

470 Cruise Marketing 0.009Portable Booth for Limo Dispatch 0.009

470 Fire-Rescue 0.550Equipment

AutoPulse System (2 units) 0.036Diesel Forklift - 15,000 lb. Lift Capacity (replacement) 0.150Mobile Radios (2 new) 0.010Physio Control Life Pak 15 Monitor/Defibrillator (4 units) 0.114

VehiclesFord E350 Club Wagon - replaces 1995 GMC Safari Van #3032 0.030Ford Explorer - replaces 2000 Chevy Blazer #3039 0.030Ford F150 Pickup - replaces 1991 Chevy 2500 Pickup #3006 0.030Ford F450 Pickup - replaces 1991 Ford E-One Pumper Chassis 0.150

470 Operations 0.347(2) Electric "Green Initiative Vehicles" (replacements for gas-powered pickup trucks) 0.038(1) Ford E250 Work Van (fleet replacement) 0.020(3) Ford E350 Work Vans (fleet replacements) 0.066(4) Ford F150 Pickup Trucks (fleet replacements) 0.078(1) Ford F450 Pickup Truck (fuel truck replacement) 0.045(4) Hybrid ("Green") Vehicles (fleet replacements) 0.100

470 Public Works 0.072Engine Steam Cleaner (replacement) 0.003Graphics & Sign Printer-Large Format (reduces cruise terminal per panel cost from $800 to $30) 0.025

Graphics & Sign Printer-Small Format (reduces staff time & materials cost/waste) 0.004Heavy Duty Trailer-Mounted Pressure Cleaner 0.010Lift Station Pumps (replacements for failed units) 0.030

475 Seaport Engineering & Construction 0.016Underwater Roving Video Camera 0.016

4004 4710 470 6735 Cranes Improvements/ReplacementAnnual Southport Crane Painting 1.000 I 0.700 I 0.700 I 0.700 I 0.700 I 3.800Panzer Belt Replacement 0.200 I 0.170 I 0.370Replace Personnel Elevator - SP1 0.300 I 0.300Storm Brakes - SP5 & SP6 0.200 I 0.200Structural Upgrades to Southport Cranes 2.100 I 2.100Twin Pick Container Spreader (replacement) 0.175 I 0.175

4005 4710 470 6821 Crane Parts and Support Annual Crane Parts & Support 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 2.500

4006 4710 6832 Passenger Loading Bridges Improvements/Replacement470 Annual Spare Parts for FMT Loading Bridges 0.100 I 0.100 I 0.100 I 0.100 I 0.100 I 0.500470 Network Connectivity & Hardware Upgrades 0.250 I 0.250475 Relocation of Terminal 1 Loading Bridge 0.250 I 0.250470 Spare Cylinders 0.180 I 0.180

Terminal 4 Second Loading Bridge 1.400 I 1.400Terminal 21 Loading Bridge (replacement) 1.400 I 1.400

4007 4710 470 6564 Port Information Technology Systems 0.150 I 0.650 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 0.300 I 1.700Hardware

PC & Laptop ReplacementsFiscal Year 2011Fiscal Year 2012 0.100Fiscal Year 2013 0.075Fiscal Year 2014 0.075Fiscal Year 2015 0.075

Renew and Replace HardwareFiscal Year 2011Fiscal Year 2012 0.065Fiscal Year 2013 0.015Fiscal Year 2014 0.015Fiscal Year 2015 0.015

Replace Servers & Backup EquipmentFiscal Year 2011Fiscal Year 2012 0.035Fiscal Year 2013 0.035Fiscal Year 2014 0.035Fiscal Year 2015 0.035

Upgrade Wireless TechnologyFiscal Year 2011Fiscal Year 2012 0.025Fiscal Year 2013 0.025Fiscal Year 2014 0.025Fiscal Year 2015 0.025

SoftwareFiscal Year 2011 0.150Fiscal Year 2012 0.425Fiscal Year 2013 0.150Fiscal Year 2014 0.150Fiscal Year 2015 0.150


____________________________________________________________________________6-27

Table 6.3-8 (Continued)5-Year CIP Project Funding Sources




4018 4710 470 6564 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Participation 3.422 I 1.738 I 0.053 I 0.053 I 5.266

4008 4710 475 6563 IN-HOUSE LABOR & OVERHEAD 0.840 I 0.840 I 0.840 I 0.840 I 0.840 I 4.200

4009 4710 New Unit Inlet Management Plan 3.420 I 3.420

4010 4710 6822 Port Security Improvements

470Annual Replacement of Electronic Security Equipment at Security Operations Center (includes PCs) 0.200 I 0.200 I 0.200 I 0.200 I 0.200 I 1.000

470 Matching Grant Funds 1.000 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 3.000470 Security Enclosure for Northport Garage 2.000 I/G 2.000

DHS/Port Security Grant Round 9 (FY 11) 1.500Port Funds (11) 0.500

Terminals & Port Buildings Improvements4012 4710 6549 General Terminal Improvements

Annual Miscellaneous Terminal Improvements475 Seaport Engineering 1.000 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 5.000470 Operations 1.880 1.880 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 5.880

A/C Replacements 0.300Banners & Signs 0.080Entry Doors (glass; automatic) 0.100Floor Resurfacing (concrete polishing) 0.400Flooring/Carpeting (replacement; upgrades) 0.100Roof Replacement 0.400Seating (replacement) 0.300Wall Partitions (security & CBP requirements) 0.200

Terminal 29 Upgrades 1.500 I 1.500

4017 4710 Carnival Cruise Terminals Improvements

475 6840 Terminal No. 2 Improvements 3.643 PF 3.6436845 Terminal No. 19 Improvements

475 Construction 9.929 PF 9.929

475 6850 Terminal No. 21 Improvements 4.378 PF 4.378

475 6855 Terminal No. 26 Improvements 11.553 I/PF 11.553

4013 4710 6515 Port Building Improvements (Including Leasehold Improvements)Annual Miscellaneous Port Building Improvements

475 Seaport Engineering 0.500 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 0.500 I 2.500470 Operations 0.400 I 0.400 I 0.400 I 0.400 I 0.400 I 2.000

A/C Replacements 0.100Doors; Overhead Rollup Garage Type (replacements) 0.100

Floorings Replacements (upgrades) 0.075Roof Replacement 0.100Warehouse Dock Levelers (replacements) 0.025

Custom's House Repairs 0.500 I 0.500

475Install Emergency Escape Window in Battalion Chief's Quarters at Public Safety Building 0.006 I 0.006

470 Replace 14 Roll-up Bay Doors at Public Safety Building 0.100 I 0.100

475 Replace Exhaust Dampers for Smoke Evac System at Port Administration Building 0.022 I 0.022

4016 4710 470 6570 FPC/FSTED Grant Administrative Fees 0.094 I 0.166 I 0.295 I 0.260 I 0.094 I 0.909

Total Internal Funding (I, CR/I) 24.829 38.666 47.137 39.317 17.266 167.215Previous Internal Funding (PF) 28.575 28.575

Total Future Grants (G) 3.300 20.216 15.000 7.936 16.371 62.823Total Debt (U, CR/U) 27.000 72.000 50.000 149.000

Total Private Investment (P) 37.500 44.948 15.154 97.602Total Capital Plan 94.204 103.830 104.291 119.253 83.637 505.215

Less Private Investment (P) (37.500) (44.948) (15.154) (97.60) Total Port Capital Budget 56.704 58.882 89.137 119.253 83.637 407.613


____________________________________________________________________________6-28



Cost ($ millions)

General Infrastructure 20.00$ Master Plan Projects 461.00$ ACOE Dredging Project -$ Other Port Capital Improvements 70.00$ Total (in present day dollars) 551.00$

Years 2020 to 202920-Year Vision Development Program


6.3.3 10-Year Vision Development Program

Table 6.3-9 shows the order-of-magnitude project costs in the Port’s complete 10-Year Vision Development Program. The costs of the General Infrastructure and Other Port Capital Improvements were assumed to be $20 million and $70 million, respectively. The costs of the Master Plan Projects and ACOE Dredging Project were taken from Element 5.

Table 6.3-9Project Costs in 10-Year Vision Development Program

6.3.4 20-Year Vision Development Plan

Table 6.3-10 shows the order-of-magnitude project costs in the Port’s complete 20-Year Vision Development Program. The costs of the General Infrastructure and Other Port Capital Improvements were assumed to be $20 million and $70 million, respectively. The costs of the Master Plan Projects and ACOE Dredging Project were taken from Element 5.

Table 6.3-10Project Costs in 20-Year Vision Development Program

6.3.5 Conclusion

It is anticipated that the Port’s 20-Year Vision Development Program, at full build-out over the 20-year planning horizon, if warranted by market demand, will have an order-of-magnitude cost of approximately $1.7 billion, as summarized in Table 6.3-11.

Table 6.3-11____________________________________________________________________________6-29

Table 6.5-5

Cost ($ millions)

General Infrastructure 20.00$ Master Plan Projects 312.22$ ACOE Dredging Project 235.00$ Other Port Capital Improvements 70.00$ Total (in present day dollars) 637.22$

10-Year Vision Development ProgramYears 2016 to 2019

5-Year 10-Year 20-Year TotalGeneral Infrastructure 37.75$ 20.00$ 20.00$ 77.75$ Master Plan Projects 356.53$ 312.22$ 461.00$ 1,129.75$ ACOE Dredging Project 21.00$ 235.00$ -$ 256.00$ Other Port Capital Improvements 89.94$ 70.00$ 70.00$ 229.94$ Total (in present day dollars) 505.22$ 637.22$ 551.00$ 1,693.44$

Cost ($ millions)


Project Costs in Complete Development Program: 2011 – 2029

The Port’s Development Program, including the 5-Year Master Plan and the 10- and 20-Year Vision Plans is, however, a road map laid out to achieve the market demand projected at the time this 2009 Master/Vision Plan was prepared. The global marketplace and the maritime community’s competitive response to that marketplace are constantly evolving. Thus, this Plan is presented as a flexible document, requiring periodic re-examination and re-evaluation of the parameters that affect the Port’s development. Future projects need to provide the infrastructure necessary to serve the re-evaluated market assessment and Go/No Go decisions should be made through the strategic decision-making process defined in this planning program to achieve the economic goals of Broward County and its dynamic Port.

6.4 Affordability AnalysisThe Port Everglades Department conducted a planning and financial “affordability” analysis to determine the potential mechanisms to finance the projected Master/Vision Plan projects from 2011 through 2020. The purpose of the analysis was to provide an informed estimate of the potential financial impact of implementing the Master/Vision Plan projects through the 10-year planning horizon. To obtain this estimate, a comprehensive analysis was performed to determine potential revenues and expenses over the 10-year period; net income was then compared with the potential debt the Port would have to carry forward to finance the projects.

Future Revenue Calculations . To calculate future revenues, Port staff utilized the FY 2011 indicated revenue as base numbers and applied an annual growth factor from the Master/Vision Plan market forecast for each of the Port’s business lines. The base revenue numbers were calculated based on the FY 2011 approved budget and collected from the various revenue centers. An annual 2.5 percent tariff increase was assumed to calculate total future revenues for each year.

Future Expense Calculations . To calculate future expenses, Port staff applied the ratio of historical operating expenses as a percentage of revenues. The calculated revenues minus the expenses provided the operating income used to pay existing debt service and be available for new debt service. The projects were funded as cash was needed and paid for out of accumulated savings and issuing new debt as needed. A 50 percent cost recovery assumption was made for the Cruise Terminal 4 and Slip 2 expansion projects with the corresponding revenue stream beginning in FY 2012.

Debt Service Estimates . New debt service was estimated to be 10 percent of the total amount of new bonds issued, beginning in FY 2013. Typically, Port bond covenants

____________________________________________________________________________6-30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Revenues $ 131,325,380 $ 147,380,705 $ 158,433,263 $ 159,927,413 $ 164,599,687

Expenses (80,788,110) (84,052,900) (90,771,940) (98,420,040) (102,770,870)

Amount available for debt service $ 52,310,970 $ 63,783,705 $ 67,541,423 $ 61,232,773 $ 62,103,617

Existing debt service $ 32,043,144 $ 32,049,872 $ 32,043,681 $ 32,048,068 $ 32,050,655

New debt service - - - 2,980,516 10,924,806

Total debt service $ 32,043,144 $ 32,049,872 $ 32,043,681 $ 35,028,584 $ 42,975,461

Test (125%) 1.82 2.22 2.35 1.93 1.56

Test (110%) 1.63 1.99 2.11 1.75 1.45

Projected new debt required $ - $ - $ 27,095,599 $ 72,220,811 $ 50,071,844


require minimum coverage ratios of 110 percent and 125 percent of operating income divided by annual debt service requirements.

To assess the feasibility of funding all Master/Vision Plan projects and the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening projects, two sensitivities were applied to calculate the projected debt service coverage, one funding the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening project and one without funding the project. The detailed worksheets of the affordability analysis are provided in Appendix I.

6.4.1 Master/Vision Plan Projects with ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening

Tables 6.4-1 and 6.4-2 summarize the results of the analysis for projected bond covenant debt coverage in FY 2011 to FY 2015 and FY 2016 to FY 2020, respectively. The analysis calculated the debt service coverage based on existing and new bond debt that would be required to fund the Master/Vision Plan projects and the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening project, assuming the Port’s share of the project being funded as debt service by the Port. The results show the bond covenant debt service coverage test requirements met and exceeded the required 110 percent and 125 percent tests for FY 2011 through FY 2015; however, the coverage ratio reduces significantly from 2018 through 2020. As noted in Appendix I of the main document, unless additional funding sources are identified, the ACOE Deepening and Widening is difficult due to potential debt limitations. Never the less, this plan does include completion of the design phase; however, proceeding to the construction phase will require the identification of additional funding sources.

Table 6.4-1Projected Debt Service Coverage with ACOE Deepening and Widening (2011 – 2015)

Table 6.4-2Projected Debt Service Coverage with ACOE Deepening and Widening (2016 – 2020)

____________________________________________________________________________6-31

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Revenues $ 172,957,401 $ 179,599,260 $ 185,845,950 $ 195,986,420 $ 204,974,740

Expenses (107,952,560) (112,025,240) (118,941,410) (125,431,310) (131,183,830)


Existing debt service $ 32,051,244 $ 22,520,596 $ 22,523,588 $ 22,528,667 $ 22,527,702

New debt service 16,432,708 18,714,406 26,694,882 33,225,211 37,755,051


Test (125%) 1.44 1.79 1.45 1.34 1.30

Test (110%) 1.34 1.65 1.36 1.26 1.22

Projected new debt required $ 20,742,711 $ 72,549,782 $ 59,366,630 $ 41,180,368 $ 43,350,643


6.4.2 Master/Vision Plan Projects without ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening

Port staff ran the second case, assuming no funding for the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening project. Utilizing the bond covenant debt service coverage test requirements, they analyzed the projected debt service with the Master/Vision Plan projects but without the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening project in FY 2011 to 2015 and FY 2016 to 2020, as summarized in Tables 6.4-3 and 6.4-4.

The results show the bond covenant debt coverage test requirements met and exceeded the required 110 percent and 125 percent tests and resulted in future ratios more favorable without the ACOE Channel Deepening and Widening project.

____________________________________________________________________________6-32

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Revenues $ 172,957,401 $ 179,599,260 $ 185,845,950 $ 195,986,420 $ 204,974,740

Expenses (107,952,560) (112,025,240) (118,941,410) (125,431,310) (131,183,830)


Existing debt service $ 32,051,244 $ 22,520,596 $ 22,523,588 $ 22,528,667 $ 22,527,702 New debt service 14,232,708 14,232,708 16,939,895 19,097,176 22,072,933


Test (125%) 1.52 2.03 1.85 1.84 1.79

Test (110%) 1.41 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.66

Projected new debt required $ - $ 24,610,795 $ 19,611,643 $ 27,052,333 $ 27,668,525

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Revenues $ 131,325,380 $ 147,380,705 $ 158,433,263 $ 159,927,413 $ 164,599,687

Expenses (80,788,110) (84,052,900) (90,771,940) (98,420,040) (102,770,870)


Existing debt service $ 32,043,144 $ 32,049,872 $ 32,043,681 $ 32,048,068 $ 32,050,655 New debt service - - - 2,980,516 10,924,806


Test (125%) 1.82 2.22 2.35 1.93 1.56

Test (110%) 1.63 1.99 2.11 1.75 1.45

Projected new debt required $ - $ - $ 27,095,599 $ 72,220,811 $ 30,071,844


Table 6.4-3Projected Debt Service Coverage without ACOE Deepening and Widening (2011 – 2015)

Table 6.4-4Projected Debt Service Coverage without ACOE Deepening and Widening (2016 – 2020)

____________________________________________________________________________6-33

Documents

Strategy Development: Our Objectives (Phase I)€¦ · Web viewThe Port’s Development Program, including the 5-Year Master Plan and the 10- and 20-Year Vision Plans is, however,