urbanSTL

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Nov 19, 2018

Really you only need to know how much it would cost to demolish. If they don't pay for upgrades after 30 years and walk, then you just demolish it. The city didn't put any money into it, so who cares if they walk at that point. Tear it down and sell the land.

sounds good. then the city needs to create an account that CAN NOT BE TOUCHED for anything other than demolition or upgrade, and the ownership group needs to deposit into that account enough money to demolish the stadium BEFORE it is allowed to be built. as revenue is added to this account (interest, taxes, etc.) the ownership group can use that additional money for upgrades. BUT THERE MUST ALWAYS BE ENOUGH FOR DEMOLITION.

that would be great. the problem is, you can ALWAYS count on corporate owners to try and externalize their costs. they will do whatever they can to push their expenses off on tax payers. i'm ***** tired of it. every precaution needs to be taken.

and aside from the financing, i take major issue with Reed being such a crooked tool and threatening Ald. Ingrassia, who's trying to look out for city taxpayers, ~30% of which live at or below the poverty level.

^This makes no sense. Why would anyone be expected to pay up front for something that may or may not happen 20 years from now. Set a number you want to see in the account by 2028 with milestones every two to four years to show that progress is being made. Pay into that account with revenue from the taxes. Any shortfall on the milestone has to be made up by the owners at that time. No need to require it up front.

Also how does it benefit the taxpayers of the city to not build this stadium? Is there any revenue that is being deferred as part of this plan that would exist if no stadium were built? I don't see it. I think we're looking at a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation.

Black02AltimaSE wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

^This makes no sense. Why would anyone be expected to pay up front for something that may or may not happen 20 years from now. Set a number you want to see in the account by 2028 with milestones every two to four years to show that progress is being made. Pay into that account with revenue from the taxes. Any shortfall on the milestone has to be made up by the owners at that time. No need to require it up front.

It's not an exact analog, but a Nuclear Decomissioning Trust operates on the same principles. Money must be set aside annually to properly shut down a nuclear plant if/when closure is necessary.

Black02AltimaSE wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

^This makes no sense.
...
Any shortfall on the milestone has to be made up by the owners at that time. No need to require it up front.

it makes perfect sense. if for some reason things fall apart in the short term and the ownership group splits, city taxpayers aren't on the hook for another empty sports facility. on the other hand, if the team is successful and doesn't abandon the stadium prematurely then the ownership group will make that money back within a reasonable amount of time.

we've seen how well it works out when we ask team owners to maintain their facilities–even when they're legally obligated.
no. the demo money needs to be there in full before anything gets built. and to demo a stadium of this size we're probably talking $10 to $20 million. it's not at all unreasonable to ask for that up front.

I think sometimes we fail to acknowledge that the city has already negotiated this deal for the better part of a year. Over that time period the ask from the various groups representing the MLS ownership has gone from asking for $120 million + city ownership of the stadium + waiver of ticket tax to where it stands today - zero dollars out of pocket up front from the city and maintenance costs deferred upwards of 20 years and paid partially by ticket tax.

I think it was summed up well by the phrase used earlier - "perfect is the enemy of good".

If Ingrassia or other members of the BOA wants to play hardball and get the perfect deal which is essentially free and clear of any contribution from the city aside from fluff such as donating the land, they just need to understand their leverage (or lack thereof) and the opportunity costs if the ownership group decides to shut it down or move it elsewhere.

Some of you are ok with that option and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I think the net gain from the development itself, significant investment in downtown west, opportunity to use that momentum to secure other investments and the overall morale of the entire STL market are worth the gamble that the city will have made some incremental improvements in the 20 years before any significant expenses are expected. Considering how many tax abatements have been handed out over the past 10 years, we should start seeing a nice bump in revenue, although with the fiscal history of the city government there's about a 99% chance that money has already been spent.

And to top it off, the one apparently standing up for the city's fiscal responsibility is an alderwoman who doesn't exactly have the best track record in handling complex financial business deals.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Nov 19, 2018

Really you only need to know how much it would cost to demolish. If they don't pay for upgrades after 30 years and walk, then you just demolish it. The city didn't put any money into it, so who cares if they walk at that point. Tear it down and sell the land.

sounds good. then the city needs to create an account that CAN NOT BE TOUCHED for anything other than demolition or upgrade, and the ownership group needs to deposit into that account enough money to demolish the stadium BEFORE it is allowed to be built. as revenue is added to this account (interest, taxes, etc.) the ownership group can use that additional money for upgrades. BUT THERE MUST ALWAYS BE ENOUGH FOR DEMOLITION.

that would be great. the problem is, you can ALWAYS count on corporate owners to try and externalize their costs. they will do whatever they can to push their expenses off on tax payers. i'm f***ing tired of it. every precaution needs to be taken.

and aside from the financing, i take major issue with Reed being such a crooked tool and threatening Ald. Ingrassia, who's trying to look out for city taxpayers, ~30% of which live at or below the poverty level.

I don't think it has to be put in the account BEFORE it gets built. If you want an account like that, figure out how much it would cost to demolish (guesstimate 30 years from now cost if you want) and break it up into 30 yearly payments (assuming it is a 30 year lease). It just needs to be there by the time the lease is over not when it opens.

And I don't really trust any of the alderman except maybe Ogilvie. Everyone else has their self interests in mind and skews everything how they want. Reed, Ingrassia, Green, Davis... So picking one over the other is pretty much picking the least rotten of the bunch. Some take a stand on the stadium because it is sports and it panders to some voters, but 100%/90% TIFs/tax abatements get given out like candy to the point that developers who don't even need them, ask for them because they know the city won't say no. Maybe they should do a better job looking out for tax payers on non sports development also.

Either way, those all can fight in the media, while this thing gets passed anyway. Like I said before, the new NFL stadium got passed thru the board with a way worse deal than this, same with the first MLS stadium. This is going to breeze through.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

I still come back to the fact that if this was as great a deal as it's made out to be, why aren't the county or Illinois going all out and outbidding the city for it? The fact that we haven't heard too much noise about either trying to swoop in should be some form of signal.

The MLS communicated that their strong preference is to award franchises to stadiums built in the city center of the market.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

^Well, it's not as if the rest of the Alderman are exactly business savants either. If they were, or if their way of governing was as effective as some make it sound like it is, then wouldn't the city be in better financial standing?

Which is why I said everyone (except I think Ogilvie is decent, but unfortunately leaving). They all have been pretty business wise.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

Is Ingrassia perfect? Nope. But she is going against the grain of what politics in the city typically have been and is forcing the discussions to take place.

I want to see her start standing up to other tax abatement/TIF deals also if she feels so strongly against bad deals. She hasn't done that if they are in her ward (besides this) so I still think she is at least partially doing it because it is sports related. If it wasn't sports she would be pushing it thru.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

I still come back to the fact that if this was as great a deal as it's made out to be, why aren't the county or Illinois going all out and outbidding the city for it? The fact that we haven't heard too much noise about either trying to swoop in should be some form of signal.

If the county or Illinois was given the option, I am sure they would. MLS has pretty much said it has to be downtown, so that is where the focus has been. I think Stenger would find a spot for it if they went to him asking. If this doesn't go thru maybe they will move onto the county and see if MLS will accept that.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 20, 2018

Is Ingrassia perfect? Nope. But she is going against the grain of what politics in the city typically have been and is forcing the discussions to take place.

She's going against the grain on this one issue, not with regards to city politics as a whole. Maybe that's why there's a public backlash. There's a spotlight on this project and it's sports-related so let's get some headlines about pushing for fiscal responsibility. Sure, the hotel that just broke ground next door doesn't have to pay taxes for five years and Union Station got a $20mm tif for its conversion into an aquarium and it's true that the BOA just handed SLU the keys to 400 acres of redevelopment a few miles away in Midtown including full authority to grant up to 15 year tax abatements. But this is the deal where someone is going to put their foot down b/c we may not have any money in 2045.

As for the county, they know that the city is MLS' top choice, but I'd wager a hefty amount that they absolutely have had discussions about when/if there is a need to move to the backup plan.

I was responding to jbacott, you just beat me to the post button by a few seconds.

I think the need for the downtown stadium is overplayed. MLS wants one and has said as much, but they want the STL market more. Especially with an ownership group with extremely deep pockets and a stadium deal that does not have to go through public voting no matter where it's built.

If the BOA tells the Taylor's that they need to own it or pound sand, maybe the Taylor's cave and agree. But the BOA would have to be prepared to watch them build it in the county while the site next to Union Station collects dust.

Yet another reason it's ridiculous that the city and county operate as competitors despite serving the same region.

Okay, so this is taken care of. So let's move on to the next issue people have with it.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... adium.html

City analysis: Fund would cover MLS stadium demolition

Jonathan Ferry, major project manager for the city, said Wednesday that he calculated the fund would generate $22.2 million over 25 years. He said based on similar-sized demolitions, the demolition of the stadium, just west of Union Station, would cost $17.9 million to $23.9 million in about 2047.

St. Louis Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia said last week that the fund would generate only $9.5 million after 30 years, as she sought to ensure the city does not own the stadium. Aldermanic President Lewis Reed and others want the city to own it, saying that the team’s ownership group would also be responsible, via a lease, for ongoing upkeep, maintenance and improvements. They also reason that the city could market the property, just off Interstate 64, to a business.

Ferry said his analysis considers Texas Stadium in Arlington, which cost $6 million to raze in 2010.

The St. Louis fund would come from 2.5 percent of an amusement tax, which totals 5 percent. Ferry said the analysis projected 91 percent attendance for events, with capacity at 20,000 for several years. Ticket prices start at $32, according to the analysis, and grow roughly 5 percent annually. Ferry also expected 14 special events a year, with total attendance of about 60,000 for those.

In the first years, total ticket revenue would be $15 million to $17 million, according to the analysis.
“It’s a safe assumption that after 25 years the fund would be able to pay for demolition,” Ferry said.
The Board of Aldermen’s Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee will consider a resolution from Reed on Nov. 28. His resolution says the city would own the stadium.

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2018

I have concerns with these numbers though... a 5% increase every year for 20 years would mean a ticket in 20 years would be $80.86. That's unreasonably high. And the $32 ticket price seems high as well... I would bet money that there will be tickets sold as low as $5 or $10 for cheap high level seats. Plus the 20,000 capacity for several years and 91% for all 20 years just seems unreasonably high... there are cases in MLS such as FC Dallas where % was closer to 75% and an average attendance of 14k for a stadium that has 20kish capacity.

This just feels like a best case scenario when I think they should base the funding off of a worst case scenario.

I don't think they will have any trouble selling out for the first 5 to 10 years, just based on the newness. The stadium will hold 22k not 20 so that already gives you 2k extra seats a game. So those first years already will give you a buffer if the later years are worse (and at 75% for example) to end up around 90% of 20k. KC (who I think we can compare to) has basically sold out ever year they have been around. So I don't think a 91% figure is far fetched.

You also are taking Dallas who has the worst attendance in the league. I doubt we would be the worst and if we just take the median (not doing average because some of the teams in football stadiums would throw it off) attendance it is right about at 20K. So I don't have a problem with the attendance estimates. He also did his numbers for 25 years and I would guess at minimum there will be 30 years of money going into the fund.

I do agree 5% increase every year is excessive. That probably won't happen. I would be curious what average ticket price he used. I don't think $32 is going to be far off for starting single game tickets but season tickets will be lower. KC start their season tickets at $21. I would imagine a big chunk of the tickets will be season tickets.

City gives Major League Soccer stadium proposal five stars

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... op-story-1

Also currently airing the committee meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUlkxV83lQ

I don't think they will have any trouble selling out for the first 5 to 10 years, just based on the newness. The stadium will hold 22k not 20 so that already gives you 2k extra seats a game. So those first years already will give you a buffer if the later years are worse (and at 75% for example) to end up around 90% of 20k. KC (who I think we can compare to) has basically sold out ever year they have been around. So I don't think a 91% figure is far fetched.

For perspective, KC's season tickets are sold out and there is a waiting list. I remember reading on a reddit page a while back that the wait list is approximately 10,000 people long and the current renewal rate for season tickets is 98%.

St. Louis Vote of Aldermen Passes MLS Stadium Resolution by 26-2 vote.

Only no votes were from Sharon Tyus and Megan Green

https://kmox.radio.com/articles/st-loui ... -26-2-vote

all this is just a show- the real votes are next year and i highly doubt that the 14 even ward aldermen will want to touch this before their March 5th re-election, so this will be decided by a different Board of Aldermen and a different President of the Board of Aldermen.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2018

all this is just a show- the real votes are next year and i highly doubt that the 14 even ward aldermen will want to touch this before their March 5th re-election, so this will be decided by a different Board of Aldermen and a different President of the Board of Aldermen.

I think the final stuff gets done before the next board sits. MLS isn't going to wait around that long. You know Reed will be pushing hard to get it done before the next board. I also think if they weren't going to touch it, there wouldn't have been so many yes votes today.

No chance it happens before March 5th election.