Sketcher's proposal - from the archives

[Sketcher]

Sketcher is back. If the Maloofs are serious about looking for new arena ideas here's one I've publicly mothballed for months awaiting outcome of the vote. It was presented to John Thomas earlier this year and met with a short dismissive reply. Now, fellow Kings fans, here's a workable alternative for your consideration.

A) A NEW ARENA SHOULD BE BUILT AT THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE ARCADE CREEK GOLF COURSE off of the Capital City Expressway.

Reasons why:

1) The City of Sacramento owns the land.
2) The land could be donated to the project at no cost.
3) The land around Arco and arena could be sold for $70MM.
4) Proceeds of the sale would be used to payoff the city loan.
5) Taxpayers would be happy to have that loan paid back.
6) The city would be more willing to underwrite bond financing.
7) The site has great visibility and access i.e. two freeways, light rail.
8) The site is within close proximity to an RTD light rail station.
9) The site would have far less infrastructure costs than the railyards.
10) The site could be designated a sports district with golf, softball, basketball facilities etc..
11) The site is preferable to Cal Expo because it has better access and parking lot configuration.
12) The trap shooting club is being replaced with a car dealership thus eliminating the argument that development shouldn't take place on that side of the freeway.
13) Team planes could land at McClelland although overflight issues might need to be addressed.
14) It appears to be a clean site, few observable and delaying environmental considerations.
15) This site could be under construction quicker than the railyards or Natomas.
16) Golfers can be redirected to other city courses.

B) HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

1) Given the sales tax defeat this must be primarily a combination of a private party equity contribution and facility user fee or seat tax. If the venue has 2MM users per year x $5-10 per seat fee on top of the ticket price, that revenue would pay for the interest on the construction bond financing. Taxpayers would be out of the equation except for guaranteeing the bonds which should be okay because they've gotten back the $70MM loan.

Dunmore Communities floated a trial balloon on developing all of the golf course property with your typical mixed use master planned project. Comments by city staff indicated that it would never happen. However, the highest and best public use for that property is probably not the Arcade Creek cow pasture golf course. This idea certainly makes a lot more sense than the other locations and has financial benefits as well.

 

[VF21]

Sketcher is back. If the Maloofs are serious about looking for new arena ideas here's one I've publicly mothballed for months awaiting outcome of the vote. It was presented to John Thomas earlier this year and met with a short dismissive reply. Now, fellow Kings fans, here's a workable alternative for your consideration.

A) A NEW ARENA SHOULD BE BUILT AT THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE ARCADE CREEK GOLF COURSE off of the Capital City Expressway.

Reasons why:

1) The City of Sacramento owns the land.
2) The land could be donated to the project at no cost.
3) The land around Arco and arena could be sold for $70MM.
4) Proceeds of the sale would be used to payoff the city loan.
5) Taxpayers would be happy to have that loan paid back.
6) The city would be more willing to underwrite bond financing.
7) The site has great visibility and access i.e. two freeways, light rail.
8) The site is within close proximity to an RTD light rail station.
9) The site would have far less infrastructure costs than the railyards.
10) The site could be designated a sports district with golf, softball, basketball facilities etc..
11) The site is preferable to Cal Expo because it has better access and parking lot configuration.
12) The trap shooting club is being replaced with a car dealership thus eliminating the argument that development shouldn't take place on that side of the freeway.
13) Team planes could land at McClelland although overflight issues might need to be addressed.
14) It appears to be a clean site, few observable and delaying environmental considerations.
15) This site could be under construction quicker than the railyards or Natomas.
16) Golfers can be redirected to other city courses.

B) HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

1) Given the sales tax defeat this must be primarily a combination of a private party equity contribution and facility user fee or seat tax. If the venue has 2MM users per year x $5-10 per seat fee on top of the ticket price, that revenue would pay for the interest on the construction bond financing. Taxpayers would be out of the equation except for guaranteeing the bonds which should be okay because they've gotten back the $70MM loan.

Dunmore Communities floated a trial balloon on developing all of the golf course property with your typical mixed use master planned project. Comments by city staff indicated that it would never happen. However, the highest and best public use for that property is probably not the Arcade Creek cow pasture golf course. This idea certainly makes a lot more sense than the other locations and has financial benefits as well.

NOTE: After Sketcher's comments in the Cal Expo thread, I went into the archives and found this...

Since he's argued that his plan is better than anything currently under consideration, I figured it was fair game to post it for information purposes if nothing else.

 

[Bricklayer]

Cal Expo was selected on purpose to avoid the local incompetence in Sacramento and get and keep the Sacramento voters as far out of the mix as possible.

 

[Trueblood]

Interesting concept although it would be tough to guarantee 2MM users per year. Assuming the Kings average 15,000 paid per game and multiply that by 42 games, you're at around 630,000 users for a total of 6 million. Over 20 years, that gets you to 120 million. Plus, the $10 surcharge would scare off a percentage of users who would otherwise be on the fence about going to certain events.

Now you have to find enough events to average 15,000 users to fill the other 1.4 million. Kings games get you 630,000 per season. You need another 90 events. Monarch games get you 20 but they won't come close to getting 15,000, especially if you have to pay an extra $10 per ticket.

 

[kennadog]

Biggest problem I can see. The city would not "happily" underwrite bond financing. I think bond financing to build an arena on the current site would have been a good deal years ago.

The idea of bond financing for a new arena was proposed long before the sales tax proposal. It was pretty quickly shot down by the city and the anti-arena crowd as a subsidy to rich guys and too risky for the city. Yes, there is some risk (as with any loan), but I think it would have been a good way to go.

 

[Trueblood]

I wish the anti-arena crowd would quit talking about welfare for billionaires and what not. What these people fail to see is that these arenas aren't just for basketball. There are events for everybody. Both genders of all races and backgrounds. Concerts, kids shows, WWE, MMA, minor league hockey, conventions and so on. It's not just to line the Maloofs' pockets.

 

[kennadog]

I wish the anti-arena crowd would quit talking about welfare for billionaires and what not. What these people fail to see is that these arenas aren't just for basketball. There are events for everybody. Both genders of all races and backgrounds. Concerts, kids shows, WWE, MMA, minor league hockey, conventions and so on. It's not just to line the Maloofs' pockets.

Completely agree. As a Sacramentan, wehter or not the Kings stay, I'd hate to see the city go without any arena so none of those events would have a venue here.

And I hate people calling them billionaires. Not a single Maloof is on the Forbe's list of the world's billionaires. The Maloof's money is pocket change to Paul Allen, owner of the Blazers. And even his arena ownership had to declare bankruptcy.