Looks like a city fiscal note would not be nearly as rosy as the footballers would have it:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d28e7.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d28e7.html
Here's more on the bad news regarding stadium financing:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1435613479
Crazy that this is only coming out now, but that is what the legal process does. Another thing to keep in mind is that Blitz said in the hearing that the ask of the City may be more than $6 million a year. We'll have to await the actual financing plan, but it surely will deserve a lot of scrutiny.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1435613479
Crazy that this is only coming out now, but that is what the legal process does. Another thing to keep in mind is that Blitz said in the hearing that the ask of the City may be more than $6 million a year. We'll have to await the actual financing plan, but it surely will deserve a lot of scrutiny.
- 3,433
This piece totally ignores the fact that the County will devote it's 6 million per year hotel tax money to the Convention Center according to Stenger, instead of the new stadium. That should allow the city to devote the same amount to the new stadium. I thought the hotel tax was setup to pay down the dome debt. If the city devoted that money to the convention center instead, then it's just a shell game to save money somewhere else. It's like saying we can't have schools because casino money meant for schools was diverted elsewhere by the legislature. Conventions are by and for private entities. Make them pay for the convention center updates and return the hotel tax money meant for stadium debt paydown back to that purpose. Let the people vote on whether or not private concerns should pay for the Convention Center, which only serves private companies, mostly from outside the area.
Edit: here's the ordinance creating the additional 3.5% hotels tax. You can read it yourself: http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data/ord2802.htm
In my reading, the tax is to support the entire convention center (including the Dome), not any one particular part.
In my reading, the tax is to support the entire convention center (including the Dome), not any one particular part.
- 8,155
^ That's been my impression as well, but I think it was widely assumed the revenue from the tax was covering at least a good portion of the Dome.... the large obligation for the Convention Center expansion was actual news. I wish though the article mentioned when that obligation will end.... if its in a few years then that wouldn't be so bad for the fiscal case.
^^ Gary, the last I heard is that Stenger was non-committal on any further hotel tax being directed to the Dome after the bond payments end in 2021.... if he has said otherwise I'd appreciate any info/links. Also, we know that the Dome authority is seeking tens of millions of dollars for maintenance needs; a few years back $60 million was mentioned.... this is separate from the obligations for the Convention Center bonds. It takes lots of dough to keep these things up to snuff.
Anyway, I think we have a better picture of the financial impact on the City now and hopefully more will be flushed out soon. A solid fiscal note and hearings on the actual financial plan will help as well.
^^ Gary, the last I heard is that Stenger was non-committal on any further hotel tax being directed to the Dome after the bond payments end in 2021.... if he has said otherwise I'd appreciate any info/links. Also, we know that the Dome authority is seeking tens of millions of dollars for maintenance needs; a few years back $60 million was mentioned.... this is separate from the obligations for the Convention Center bonds. It takes lots of dough to keep these things up to snuff.
Anyway, I think we have a better picture of the financial impact on the City now and hopefully more will be flushed out soon. A solid fiscal note and hearings on the actual financial plan will help as well.
The website for the RSA seems to claim that state law requires all proceeds from the additional 3.5% hotel tax to be put towards the CVC. Does anybody know what law that would be?
http://www.stlrsa.org/americas-center-f ... tions.html
The whole funding of the thing is complicated, but it would seem strange to me that a state law would be set up to direct the proceeds from two city/county ordinances.
And if that's the case, are we sure the County is following this protocol. Last year a blogger that had done some research into the matter speculated that the County was fudging their numbers concerning this tax and that when they had to start making payments towards the new Busch Stadium, suddenly they saw the exact right amount of increase in proceeds from the hotels tax.
http://www.stlrsa.org/americas-center-f ... tions.html
The whole funding of the thing is complicated, but it would seem strange to me that a state law would be set up to direct the proceeds from two city/county ordinances.
And if that's the case, are we sure the County is following this protocol. Last year a blogger that had done some research into the matter speculated that the County was fudging their numbers concerning this tax and that when they had to start making payments towards the new Busch Stadium, suddenly they saw the exact right amount of increase in proceeds from the hotels tax.
- 3,767
Good article written by Shane Gray. States a reliable source feels that Rams consider STL one of their "long term options".
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Rams.aspx
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Rams.aspx
- 337
David Peacock's response to that article roger wyoming II shared here:
http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/pos ... p=15070465
http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/pos ... p=15070465
BernieM wrote:In response to the story headlined -- "Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director" -- stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock issued a statement:
"The current discussion about the funding of the Dome from hotel taxes or not is not consequential to the RSA’s legal arguments. The RSA’s lawyers are not arguing that a vote is unnecessary because the voters already approved the hotel/motel tax. They are arguing that a vote would violate the RSA statute and the City Charter.
"We have said all along that the city's contribution to a new stadium would come from a combination of existing revenue streams, i.e. extending the $5-million debt service payments currently used for the Dome and the $1-million from the preservation fund payments once they expire in 2024 plus taxes generated by the game day experience.
"On the surface, I do believe the direct taxes from the Rams, the indirect taxes from game days, plus events in the Dome like tractor pulls, plus hotel/restaurant and other taxes generated by those convention goers resulting from having the Dome likely do cover the city Dome payments.
"As to whether that will be true in the new stadium, we don't know enough to say. We know the Dome will generate more revenue for our convention business with the Rams out of the building. We know the Rams exiting the Dome but staying in the market is better than having them leave altogether. We do know a new outdoor stadium positions the city better relative to attracting MLS soccer. We also know that redeveloping the North Riverfront is imperative.
"We have said for quite some time that the city's portion would come from the existing Dome payments being extended plus revenue generated by the game day experience.
"That has not changed. Bottom line, between the State and the City, we should be able to fund the public portion of the proposed new stadium without tax increases."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d28e7.html
- 8,155
^ interesting.... certainly more moderated comments than his previous assertions that the stadium will pave our streets in gold or close to that. Anyway, we'll just have to see what will be proposed.
One thing that isn't helpful for stadium financing is that David Hunn said that the city's obligations for the convention center expansion debt will continue for 20+ years. That's $17.3 million annually. Throw in the need for extensive Dome maintenance and possible improvements and we get a pretty big price tag for the convention business. And then there was that hotel fiasco.
One thing that isn't helpful for stadium financing is that David Hunn said that the city's obligations for the convention center expansion debt will continue for 20+ years. That's $17.3 million annually. Throw in the need for extensive Dome maintenance and possible improvements and we get a pretty big price tag for the convention business. And then there was that hotel fiasco.
Biz Journal has a bit about the concern of Amos Harris about the stadium proposal: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... k-out.html
Interesting to note he mentions working on a large residential project in the Landing.
Anyway, I don't know if the stadium is worth the costs -- we'll have to see the details -- but I agree with Amos that we need to focus on building our downtown rather than prioritizing expanding it. I completely disagree with Peacock's statement that it is "imperative" that we redevelop the North Riverfront in such a manner-- that is prime reserve real estate that we want to make sure we get right with mixed-uses as market conditions improve as opposed to thinking "well a shiny, huge stadium is better than nothing."
Interesting to note he mentions working on a large residential project in the Landing.
Anyway, I don't know if the stadium is worth the costs -- we'll have to see the details -- but I agree with Amos that we need to focus on building our downtown rather than prioritizing expanding it. I completely disagree with Peacock's statement that it is "imperative" that we redevelop the North Riverfront in such a manner-- that is prime reserve real estate that we want to make sure we get right with mixed-uses as market conditions improve as opposed to thinking "well a shiny, huge stadium is better than nothing."
Roger, thanks for pointing out But I'm confused on why Harris goes out of the way to state below, what is this project specifically? Why is this project all of sudden tied to the football stadium? Does Spinnaker want cold cash from the city like Cordish got out of the KC so a stadium deal but them way back in line?
I honestly can understand Harris position that downtown developments like his benefits more from the convention side of business. That argument I can understand but this statement would have meaning if some hard, large infill projects would break ground on north riverfront but that is just not the case unless it can back up.
Harris wrote to Rainford. “As you probably know, Spinnaker has been considering a large (residential) project on (Laclede’s) Landing for some time... We think the proposed stadium location is far enough away that it won’t destroy that value, but it doesn’t add value.” Laclede’s Landing businesses have struggled in recent years.
I honestly can understand Harris position that downtown developments like his benefits more from the convention side of business. That argument I can understand but this statement would have meaning if some hard, large infill projects would break ground on north riverfront but that is just not the case unless it can back up.
Harris wrote to Rainford. “As you probably know, Spinnaker has been considering a large (residential) project on (Laclede’s) Landing for some time... We think the proposed stadium location is far enough away that it won’t destroy that value, but it doesn’t add value.” Laclede’s Landing businesses have struggled in recent years.
- 8,155
I wish I knew more about the potential residential project.... let's dispatch presby to get the goods.
I don't doubt someone like Harris, however, how does NFL stadium proximity not add value to a residential project. It is better that it is near a relatively vacant plot of land that could be something else?
The stadium is not just a stadium in a vacuum, though. As it stands now (partially due to the time crunch the NFL has placed on us), the question becomes is losing the Rams/NFL worth potentially more "urban" uses of the north riverfront. In my book, no. Retaining the team or acquiring a different one is worth using the north riverfront as a stadium site. It is not perfect, and it may not even be the best site (I found it interesting that in the recent article about the commencement of quiet taskforce brainstorming that south of downtown was considered....I wonder if it ever made it to the point of site analysis). Part of my rationale is that we know what we would be getting with the stadium if a team commits. It guarantees the NFL and additional football games (high school state, local and regional NCAA), concerts, enhanced park and trail space, likely more international soccer exposure, possibly the MLS, and any community events that the Rams may host. Another project, residential, mixed used, or otherwise leaves no guarantee of urban health. One need to look no farther than Ballpark Village,a less than capacity Robert's Tower, or the dozen's of dead projects that have slipped away over the last 10-15 years due to lack of market demand or other economically driven forces to see that grand "urban" visions call fall short in our market.
Both can and should happen: Build the stadium in a manner that retains as much infrastructure as possible-and continue to build up the existing footprint of downtown to enhance both components.
The stadium is not just a stadium in a vacuum, though. As it stands now (partially due to the time crunch the NFL has placed on us), the question becomes is losing the Rams/NFL worth potentially more "urban" uses of the north riverfront. In my book, no. Retaining the team or acquiring a different one is worth using the north riverfront as a stadium site. It is not perfect, and it may not even be the best site (I found it interesting that in the recent article about the commencement of quiet taskforce brainstorming that south of downtown was considered....I wonder if it ever made it to the point of site analysis). Part of my rationale is that we know what we would be getting with the stadium if a team commits. It guarantees the NFL and additional football games (high school state, local and regional NCAA), concerts, enhanced park and trail space, likely more international soccer exposure, possibly the MLS, and any community events that the Rams may host. Another project, residential, mixed used, or otherwise leaves no guarantee of urban health. One need to look no farther than Ballpark Village,a less than capacity Robert's Tower, or the dozen's of dead projects that have slipped away over the last 10-15 years due to lack of market demand or other economically driven forces to see that grand "urban" visions call fall short in our market.
Both can and should happen: Build the stadium in a manner that retains as much infrastructure as possible-and continue to build up the existing footprint of downtown to enhance both components.
- 9,566
Amos is full of sh*t...just looking after his own bottom line...
Is anyone going to this - http://greatriversgreenway.org/event/op ... ment-plan/ ?
- 337
A market study conditioned by the NFL to project long-term fan and corporate support going forward for an NFL franchise in the St. Louis area was just released.
Bullet-point summary: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6387942/n ... dy-stl.pdf
News article: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
Select quotes:
Bullet-point summary: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6387942/n ... dy-stl.pdf
News article: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
Select quotes:
The study projected that the Rams would generate more than $204 million in personal seat license revenue in a new stadium.
Fans who previously purchased a license told CSL they felt they received “proper value” for their purchase and indicated that the purchase of another license for a new stadium is “the cost of doing business,” according to the study.
“Current support of the (St. Louis) Cardinals and past support of the Rams (1995 to 2005) indicates that the St. Louis market can and will commit to a successful team playing in a venue that offers quality fan amenities,” the study said. It added that once the Rams’ on-field play deteriorated, seat-license support “was not sustained.” The Rams have the fourth-lowest average NFL attendance over the past five years, according to the study.
The St. Louis market “lacks a robust regional area from which to draw individuals and corporations that are not already attending games and purchasing tickets,” the study said.
- 8,155
^ Seems like there are things both supportive and not so supportive in the study... I suppose Stan's argument to the other owners will be that the Saint Louis market won't/can't support an average .500 team and no matter how hard you try as an owner you simply can't guarantee a team consistently gets into the playoffs.... the financials just don't support an owner throwing x amount of $$ into a new stadium in Saint Louis. I don't know the validity of that argument, but I think that is what it'l be.
- 2,419
St. Louis has a strong enough corporate culture to support the Rams.
Half the cities in the NFL couldn't support a sub-.500 club that doesn't go to the playoffs for 11+ years at a time.
That's a poor excuse and I wouldn't have any of it if I were the other NFL owners.
Also, they say the Rams are bottom four in the league since becoming one of the most crummy teams in the league. Where are the Chargers and Raiders on this list? I don't feel like there's a single team out there that puts fewer people in the stands that the Oakland Raiders.
Half the cities in the NFL couldn't support a sub-.500 club that doesn't go to the playoffs for 11+ years at a time.
That's a poor excuse and I wouldn't have any of it if I were the other NFL owners.
Also, they say the Rams are bottom four in the league since becoming one of the most crummy teams in the league. Where are the Chargers and Raiders on this list? I don't feel like there's a single team out there that puts fewer people in the stands that the Oakland Raiders.
He can try this line of arguing, but the Rams haven't had a .500 or better record since 2006. So that's not a great argument.roger wyoming II wrote:^ Seems like there are things both supportive and not so supportive in the study... I suppose Stan's argument to the other owners will be that the Saint Louis market won't/can't support an average .500 team and no matter how hard you try as an owner you simply can't guarantee a team consistently gets into the playoffs.... the financials just don't support an owner throwing x amount of $$ into a new stadium in Saint Louis. I don't know the validity of that argument, but I think that is what it'l be.
- 8,155
^ the average team is .500 and the owners understand that the issue is how financially viable would an average team in a mid-market like Saint Louis be. And remember, the NFL rep mentioned a while ago that not only will they be looking at the ability to finance a stadium but also the prospects for long-term support.
- 623
In a balanced league like the NFL an average (.500) team will be in contention for a playoff spot roughly every other year with meaningful games most of the year in most years. I think most Rams fans including casual fans deciding whether or not to go to the game would love a .500 team at this point and it would show in attendance.
The Rams have not been even close to an average team team. Rams attendance PER WIN is probably one of the highest in the NFL.
The Rams have not been even close to an average team team. Rams attendance PER WIN is probably one of the highest in the NFL.
^ For NFL owners as a group in the near future, I can't help but think it really comes down to having TV market coverage as a whole for the respective Metro markets without having to give up a share of their pie no matter what the studies show. A Raiders/Chargers Carson City stadium fills the hole for LA, and keeps St. Louis and San Diego mid TV markets intact. But that of course makes sense to me and a two cent opinion that goes with my two cent checkbook.
At some point, I think the NFL owners will need to decide on a two team expansion. First, to meet the growing San Antonio/Austin void (think of the fact that NY (counting Jets along with Buffalo & Giants), FL and CA have three NFL to two TX NFL teams) as well as international market that might be willing to watch American Football (TV growth will come from international), whether it be London/Europe or extending NFL south of border to Mexico City/Mexico which I think is a better alternative for keeping games within the current time zones & solid latino base of fans from South FL to Texas to Arizona to California
At some point, I think the NFL owners will need to decide on a two team expansion. First, to meet the growing San Antonio/Austin void (think of the fact that NY (counting Jets along with Buffalo & Giants), FL and CA have three NFL to two TX NFL teams) as well as international market that might be willing to watch American Football (TV growth will come from international), whether it be London/Europe or extending NFL south of border to Mexico City/Mexico which I think is a better alternative for keeping games within the current time zones & solid latino base of fans from South FL to Texas to Arizona to California
- 8,155
^ I wish expansion were in the works, too.
^^ matt, I agree with that but the question goes back to the financials for STL with an average team in a new stadium.... would there be enough long-term value for an owner to come out well with a less favorable lease than present and an investment of $250+ million to the stadium? I guess another way of putting it is if Stan were to walk away would other potential owners see that as a profitable scenario and jump at the chance? Again I don't know the financials of the league but I just think Stan will argue STL isn't tenable.
^^ matt, I agree with that but the question goes back to the financials for STL with an average team in a new stadium.... would there be enough long-term value for an owner to come out well with a less favorable lease than present and an investment of $250+ million to the stadium? I guess another way of putting it is if Stan were to walk away would other potential owners see that as a profitable scenario and jump at the chance? Again I don't know the financials of the league but I just think Stan will argue STL isn't tenable.
- 2,419
The last thing the NFL needs is another expansion franchise. 32 is plenty enough.
If everything were made equal, your favorite team would win a championship once every 32 years, just like every other team. But everything isn't made equal. With 32 teams, it won't be rare at all to see teams go 50+ years without a championship. Some will reach 100+, just like the Cubs.
America is going to keep growing. Our professional sports leagues don't need to match the pace. More and more American markets are going to reach 1.5+ million residents. I dread the idea of the NFL and MLB someday reaching as many as 40 or more teams. You could go an entire lifetime without seeing your favorite team play in the World Series or Super Bowl.
If everything were made equal, your favorite team would win a championship once every 32 years, just like every other team. But everything isn't made equal. With 32 teams, it won't be rare at all to see teams go 50+ years without a championship. Some will reach 100+, just like the Cubs.
America is going to keep growing. Our professional sports leagues don't need to match the pace. More and more American markets are going to reach 1.5+ million residents. I dread the idea of the NFL and MLB someday reaching as many as 40 or more teams. You could go an entire lifetime without seeing your favorite team play in the World Series or Super Bowl.