urbanSTL

I love the delay. Table it until we have clear view on future leadership. Meanwhile, how is St. Louis County spending their Rams money. It’s like they’re flying under the radar.

The general reserve fund is $127.4M, which is higher than the The Government Finance Officers Association recommendation. That helps financial stability concerns.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2025

^ over this one period of time which included hyper-inflation, yes.

By 2033 this money is worth $458MM.

I’m not authentically suggesting this but there is something to be said for financial stability. Creditors would certainly take notice if the city locked this money up, improving credit rating, lowering cost of taking debt for all projects.

What interest rate are you using to get to that number by 2033? If there's a commitment to leave that money as reserve for many years then that would be credit positive however the main driver of the rating of a city, state is stability of revenues and expenses. If the revenues are expected to decrease due to population loss that would be worse than the benefit for a cash reserve. Using that cash I'm confident will be better to the city because that investment is needed to prevent further population loss and hopefully help to turn it around. Therefore, for credit analysis perspective, the city is better off to use that money in infrastructure or projects that would help directly or indirectly to increase tax collection or reducing expenses. 

Rick Prieto wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2025

^ over this one period of time which included hyper-inflation, yes.

By 2033 this money is worth $458MM.

I’m not authentically suggesting this but there is something to be said for financial stability. Creditors would certainly take notice if the city locked this money up, improving credit rating, lowering cost of taking debt for all projects.

What interest rate are you using to get to that number by 2033? If there's a commitment to leave that money as reserve for many years then that would be credit positive however the main driver of the rating of a city, state is stability of revenues and expenses. If the revenues are expected to decrease due to population loss that would be worse than the benefit for a cash reserve. Using that cash I'm confident will be better to the city because that investment is needed to prevent further population loss and hopefully help to turn it around. Therefore, for credit analysis perspective, the city is better off to use that money in infrastructure or projects that would help directly or indirectly to increase tax collection or reducing expenses. 

I assume 4-5% annual returns.

Revenues are going to continue to grow in the City and there are no signs of significant increases in cost to provide services. Pulling this money aside, the city is already a stable investment.

I agree with the theory of investing the money in order to grow population. I just don’t know if (A) that is even possible and (B) is this amount of money enough to that?

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2025

Rick Prieto wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2025

^ over this one period of time which included hyper-inflation, yes.

By 2033 this money is worth $458MM.

I’m not authentically suggesting this but there is something to be said for financial stability. Creditors would certainly take notice if the city locked this money up, improving credit rating, lowering cost of taking debt for all projects.

What interest rate are you using to get to that number by 2033? If there's a commitment to leave that money as reserve for many years then that would be credit positive however the main driver of the rating of a city, state is stability of revenues and expenses. If the revenues are expected to decrease due to population loss that would be worse than the benefit for a cash reserve. Using that cash I'm confident will be better to the city because that investment is needed to prevent further population loss and hopefully help to turn it around. Therefore, for credit analysis perspective, the city is better off to use that money in infrastructure or projects that would help directly or indirectly to increase tax collection or reducing expenses. 

I assume 4-5% annual returns.

Revenues are going to continue to grow in the City and there are no signs of significant increases in cost to provide services. Pulling this money aside, the city is already a stable investment.

I agree with the theory of investing the money in order to grow population. I just don’t know if (A) that is even possible and (B) is this amount of money enough to that?

That return of 4-5% is unlikely going forward based on where the Fed rates are today. This year it may be 3-4% and ~2.5% in following years, at the end of the day the return in excess of inflation is likely to be insignificant. 

I know I am a frustrated simpleton but:
Lock them in the alderman chambers until they come to decision and get this Ram's money  settled.
Seriously put down cots so they can sleep deliver them food Put them in there until they take care of.
I thought that was one of the reasons why the alderman wards were reduced so it'd be more efficient and get things done.
Than get it done! Allocate money to fix our aging infrastructure i.e. water systems Allocate money to tear down the numerous already falling down buildings
Give young persons or any person jobs to stack bricks
Child care rent assistance? GIVE PEOPLE WORK!
Allocate money for a portion of the workhouse property to be a storage location for the never-ending abandoned vehicles all over the city .
Allocate money for cops to actually stop vehicles that have no plates  expired temporary plates and take their vehicles. Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head 
geez

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

St. Louis County might use $500k of their Rams money on an election.

Actually insane how poorly run the County is.

Manchester United has just upped the anti for new stadium construction.


https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... gprplz94yo

By using a circus tent? 

Looks like they are expanding upon the SoFi design with the covered, open-air spaces surrounding the stadium. Wonder what that roof will be made of?

Two billion pounds. 100,000 seats.

For comparison The Clippers new arena is $2 Billion for 18,000 seats.

^I don't know what it's like inside, but holy cow is that an ugly looking exterior.

They can at least sell it's naming rights. That's something no company has been willing to do for the "Dome at America's Center".

Poach them. Bengals least valuable team in NFL. Send them west on down the Ohio.

I feel really bad for smaller market cities like Cincy. The stadium/arena racket these days is insane.

Auggie wrote: ↑

Mar 14, 2025

They can at least sell it's naming rights. That's something no company has been willing to do for the "Dome at America's Center".

They have current tenants that play more than a half dozen home games a year, and the current naming rights agreement isn't that old. The "Dome at America's Center" had a different name until the Rams moved out and the naming rights expired. Unless someone is getting the thing on television I don't imagine having your name on a stadium is worth much. If . . . whatever league the Battlehawks are in today . . . actually sticks around for more than five hot minutes this time maybe they'll sell naming rights again soonish. I don't think it's because that godawful arena is prettier. It's not. (Not that the TWADome is pretty either. It isn't.) Anyway, all of this is neither here nor there. Naming rights names are near universally awful. I tend to forget who's got their name on a building anymore anyway. (It will always be the Kiel Center to me. Or Riverport.)

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Mar 15, 2025

Auggie wrote: ↑

Mar 14, 2025

They can at least sell it's naming rights. That's something no company has been willing to do for the "Dome at America's Center".

They have current tenants that play more than a half dozen home games a year, and the current naming rights agreement isn't that old. The "Dome at America's Center" had a different name until the Rams moved out and the naming rights expired. Unless someone is getting the thing on television I don't imagine having your name on a stadium is worth much. If . . . whatever league the Battlehawks are in today . . . actually sticks around for more than five hot minutes this time maybe they'll sell naming rights again soonish. I don't think it's because that godawful arena is prettier. It's not. (Not that the TWADome is pretty either. It isn't.) Anyway, all of this is neither here nor there. Naming rights names are near universally awful. I tend to forget who's got their name on a building anymore anyway. (It will always be the Kiel Center to me. Or Riverport.)

That's the point I'm making. The Heritage Bank Center attracts enough events per year to make itself advertise-able enough for a company to buy it's naming rights. The Dome doesn't do that.

Our situation with the Dome is worse than Cincinnati's situation with the HBC.

^I'm not talking about anything other than the facade of the building. And I don't want to get into a debate about who's situation is worse because I simply don't have enough information. There's a lot of moving parts. Naming rights is a pretty small part of the revenue pie.

I thought this was more or less a done deal already