City task force chooses developer David Taylor as best person to build arena

[Mike0476]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/21/3341757/city-task-force-chooses-developer.html

Key highlights...

"Task force members said they believe Taylor and ICON bring impressive experience and know-how to the table for a task that has for years been mission impossible in Sacramento.

"The task force went through the whole (vetting) process" and came to an independent and unanimous conclusion, Lehane said.

The panel gave second ranking to a proposal to redevelop the Downtown Plaza site by mixing an event center with a shopping district. That group is led by businessman Ali Mackani and McClellan Park developer Larry Kelley.

Third on the list is a plan by developer Gerry Kamilos to redevelop the Arco site and part of the Cal Expo site to generate funds, along with private financing, for a downtown arena. An earlier Kamilos land-swap proposal involving moving the State Fair to the Arco site fell through last fall when Cal Expo officials declined to participate.

A proposal for an arena next to Arco ranked fourth on the task force list.

Panel members said they strongly prefer a downtown site. The mayor has said a downtown venue would hold bigger concerts and other entertainment events, and could serve as a magnet for downtown economic development."

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Sweet. Now there's just that little wrinkle about how to pay for it...

 

[kennadog]

The title and wording of the article really give a wrong impression. They ranked the strength of the proposals, but nobody has been "selected" to do anything, yet. Mike posted a "January 25th thread" and it contains a link to the agenda item for the meeting at which the Task Force will present it's evaluation of the proposals. It reads in part:

Recommended Next Steps: While the proposals submitted to the Task Force all included statements of qualifications, they were inconsistent in their assessment of financial feasibility. Some did not include any financial feasibility analysis and others very little.

Since the key challenge in this effort has been financial feasibility and the ability to put together a viable and executable plan for financing, staff recommends that the Council select the most qualified proponent(s) and direct the proponent(s) and staff to complete a thorough financial feasibility analysis.

Specifically, staff recommends the proponent(s) complete the Submission Requirements outlined below and submit them to the City within 90 days. Staff will evaluate the submittals and return to the City Council within 60 days thereafter to report back with the
results of its analysis and recommend next steps based on the outcome of the review.

The total document can be read at the link cited in that thread.

Basically, we're no closer than we've ever been to an arena and we won't know until about July whether one or more of the proponents can come up with a financially feasible project. Then, if that plan includes some amount of city financial help, that will be another issue. I'm fearing that may be too little, too late. I hope not. But we are really no closer today than we were 14 years ago.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

The title and wording of the article really give a wrong impression. They ranked the strength of the proposals, but nobody has been "selected" to do anything, yet. Mike posted a "January 25th thread" and it contains a link to the agenda item for the meeting at which the Task Force will present it's evaluation of the proposals. It reads in part:

The total document can be read at the link cited in that thread.

Basically, we're no closer than we've ever been to an arena and we won't know until about July whether one or more of the proponents can come up with a financially feasible project. Then, if that plan includes some amount of city financial help, that will be another issue. I'm fearing that may be too little, too late. I hope not. But we are really no closer today than we were 14 years ago.

Kennadog FTW.

I'll go a step further: They admit they chose an alternative that technically could be considered non-responsive.

The requirements, as specified by the task force:

"Project concepts must address the topics of team qualifications; project design; general financing plans; development schedule; proposed location and site control status; potential to incorporate green design and building features; and expected economic and
community impact."

See the word "must" in there?

It was absolutely unwise to go with what is technically considered a non-response. If absolutely nothing else, the other 3 alternatives would seem to have good lawsuit material on their hands.

We're not going to know the status of this in July; we're going to know it in January.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Kennadog FTW.

I'll go a step further: They admit they chose an alternative that technically could be considered non-responsive.

The requirements, as specified by the task force:

"Project concepts must address the topics of team qualifications; project design; general financing plans; development schedule; proposed location and site control status; potential to incorporate green design and building features; and expected economic and
community impact."

See the word "must" in there?

It was absolutely unwise to go with what is technically considered a non-response. If absolutely nothing else, the other 3 alternatives would seem to have good lawsuit material on their hands.

We're not going to know the status of this in July; we're going to know it in January.

Gotta love watching molasas, right??

edit: I just don't think the Maloofs or Stern love it very much...

 

[Spok22]

Damn im starting to hate this city and all this talking is getting pretty tiresome. Please just get this done. I dont want the kings going anywhere, except the playoffs.

 

[fansinceday1]

Damn im starting to hate this city and all this talking is getting pretty tiresome. Please just get this done. I dont want the kings going anywhere, except the playoffs.

Your tired?
This lame do nothing city has been talking about this since Jim Thomas was the owner. 14 years. It's so pathetic and the reason why a lot of people have no hope that we will ever see an arena solution.

 

[jdbraver]

The arena just isnt feasible in this economy. Nobody is going to pay increased taxes when the unemployment is above 12 percent. If arenas actually made money like people keep saying then why isn't there an arena in every city.

 

[wazzups]

If a city has an entertainment/sport complex can you name it? if a city doesnt have an entertainment/sports complex can you name it?? Sacramento should have pro sports!

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The arena just isnt feasible in this economy. Nobody is going to pay increased taxes when the unemployment is above 12 percent. If arenas actually made money like people keep saying then why isn't there an arena in every city.

Build it and they will come.

The other way certainly hasn't been working.

 

[kennadog]

Kennadog FTW.

I'll go a step further: They admit they chose an alternative that technically could be considered non-responsive.

The requirements, as specified by the task force:

"Project concepts must address the topics of team qualifications; project design; general financing plans; development schedule; proposed location and site control status; potential to incorporate green design and building features; and expected economic and
community impact."

See the word "must" in there?

It was absolutely unwise to go with what is technically considered a non-response. If absolutely nothing else, the other 3 alternatives would seem to have good lawsuit material on their hands.

We're not going to know the status of this in July; we're going to know it in January.

Actually, none of the proposals adequately addressed financial feasibility, so nobody has grounds for a lawsuit. Besides, nobody has been eliminated yet, either. And Taylor was NOT selected in this process. That's what is misleading about that headline (a poor choice.)

All the task force did is rank the proposals and the Taylor one ranked first. My understanding is Taylor and some other proposals (maybe not all) will be asked to submit financial feasibility reports, that lays out their plan for how to finance their proposals. Taylor won't necessarily be the ultimate choice of the city, unless they also come up with the best or most likely to work financing scenario, in the next phase.

All that's happening at the city coucil meeting tomorrow is that the mayor-appointed task force will prensent there ranking of the four proposals. Then they have specified a timeframe for proposals to complete a financial feasibility anaylsis to the city council.

 

[kennadog]

The arena just isnt feasible in this economy. Nobody is going to pay increased taxes when the unemployment is above 12 percent. If arenas actually made money like people keep saying then why isn't there an arena in every city.

Interestingly enough, there are arenas in cities that don't even have a pro sports team. Liek the one Kanasa City built for itself.

And the economy is just the current excuse. When the economy was flying high, this city couldn't get it done. Fourteen years this has been going on. Non-basketball events at Arco out number Kings games by a lot. I'm going to be pi**ed if Sacramento loses an arena so I can't take my grandkids to ice shows, circuses, concerts and other events without having to drive to the bay area and spend my dollars supporting some other city.

I remember having to drive to the bay area before Arco was built to see the kind of events that have come to Arco. I can't afford to go very often, even to Arco, but it'll be a heckuva lot more expensive to go there.

 

[JB_kings]

It is feasible and the taxes involved would likely miss almost all the residents of the city. It involves taxes on rental cars, hotels and other things that hit visitors and not residents. How do you think Seattle got two stadiums built? The failure here has been to educate the public on the need and how it can be financed. Way too much focus was placed in all the wrong places and polarizing the public into thinking they were going to have to put up their first born child to help billionaires. Former and current writers for the Sac Bee and other public figures poisoned the public before it ever got all the facts.

 

[JB_kings]

And just to add some data to what I am referring to on taxes. Check out this link http://www.conventioncentertaskforce.org/resources/meetingdocs/7-21-09%20NBTA%20Executive%20Summary-Taxes%20of%20Travelers%20in%20the%20Top%2050%20U.S.%20Cities.pdf

2008 data that shows Sacramento is the 16th lowest of the top 50 cities on hotel and car rental taxes. Which means that we haven't even begun to oversaturate the tax level for hotels and rental cars.

 

[Larry David]

It is feasible and the taxes involved would likely miss almost all the residents of the city. It involves taxes on rental cars, hotels and other things that hit visitors and not residents. How do you think Seattle got two stadiums built? The failure here has been to educate the public on the need and how it can be financed. Way too much focus was placed in all the wrong places and polarizing the public into thinking they were going to have to put up their first born child to help billionaires. Former and current writers for the Sac Bee and other public figures poisoned the public before it ever got all the facts.

If it were that easy, it would have been done. In fact, these types of taxes were written off in 2006 because Sac doesn't do enough of this type of business. If they can add to the pool with this - then great.

The problem lies where the city agrees to kick in 200 million and uses rosey assumptions regarding the new fees and taxes collected on retals and hotels as the means to pay for it ... and when it doesn't happen our broke city is in real trouble when they have to cut cops and other stuff from the general fund.

When talking about rental car tax ... a lot of people don't know what they are talking about ... that includes both the anti-folk and Grant's current pitch of "we get this and somebody else pays for it."

 

[JB_kings]

If it were that easy, it would have been done. In fact, these types of taxes were written off in 2006 because Sac doesn't do enough of this type of business. If they can add to the pool with this - then great.

The problem lies where the city agrees to kick in 200 million and uses rosey assumptions regarding the new fees and taxes collected on retals and hotels as the means to pay for it ... and when it doesn't happen our broke city is in real trouble when they have to cut cops and other stuff from the general fund.

When talking about rental car tax ... a lot of people don't know what they are talking about ... that includes both the anti-folk and Grant's current pitch of "we get this and somebody else pays for it."

Show me this study that says that those taxes aren't enough. Seattle rental cars alone are .02 % of each rental. This helped them build 2 stadiums. We only need one arena! Yes Seattle does have more traffic coming in, but the tax revenue is there and somebody is getting their toes stepped on with this because they want to tap it instead. As for Grant, I haven't listened to him in years. He gave me a headache. And low and behold, you threw fear into this and said we would have to cut police because of a tax. This is why Sacramento can never have nice things!

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Wasn't the problem with the rental car taxes that they originate with the county (at the airport) and not the city?

 

[Larry David]

This is why Sacramento can never have nice things!

That's a good one. Well played sir.

Look, I'm not saying this tax won't help a lot and isn't a great idea. Moreover, I'm all for the city paying a big chunk out of this. I just don't think we can fund this primarily on the tax.


I'm just hoping for honesty and transparency by KJ and others on this point. I'd hate to see this get to a point where they paper over a huge buget hole to push this through.

This last one will be done right. Taylor is going to try to plan this nice but reasonable, he's going to ask the Maloofs for their best offer, and see if the city can pay for the rest. No more BS and hail mary's. The rubber hits the road.

Really, there is only one debate left ... how much should/can the city pay. I think this will be close. The odds depend upon the size of the number.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

This last one will be done right. Taylor is going to try to plan this nice but reasonable, he's going to ask the Maloofs for their best offer, and see if the city can pay for the rest. No more BS and hail mary's. The rubber hits the road.

Really, there is only one debate left ... how much should/can the city pay. I think this will be close. The odds depend upon the size of the number.

I agree with this, and I think it is why it is the "favored" plan even if they can't go any farther than that at this point. The guys Taylor is bringing to the table with him are pros who are getting it done in other cities, they will find a reasonable way to make this work if the city is willing to play along. It will be close but at this point the Kings have one foot out the door and hopefully the ramifications of that are dawning on everyone.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

I see a lot of points in here on a rental car tax and/or a hotel tax, and I think that's a crazy proposal. Q and R called for a .25% dedicated sales tax for the entire county, and over 15 years, that was supposed to pay for an arena, twice. But what percentage of taxable spending in this town is for rental cars? It just can't be that much. I don't know, maybe 5%, tops? If they paid for 1/2 the arena with this tax, it just seems like a rental car tax would have to be 10% to raise enough revenue.

And also, as correctly pointed out, most cars rented in this area are rented at the airport, I'd wager. That's not in the City; it's in the county. They'd have to vote on it.

The sentence "Good luck with that" comes to mind.

Ya know?

Hotels within the City, I guess. And then you'd have the hotel corporations funding a huge campaign against it.

I just don't see this going anywhere. I think the only way to do this is with a TIF or a PILOT. Proposing a hotel or car tax doesn't make sense.

I still think the main obstacles here have only gotten worse. Not enough corporations in town, the Maloofs are in a financial crisis.

None of this is the fault of the voters. I hope it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

It's just circumstances, and the general mood of the voters. Nothing personal at all.

I'm not happy about it. I just sort of turn to Japanese philosophy here. "Circumstances. It can't be helped."

And most importantly, does anyone know if Warrior Girl member Krystal is the same Krystal that used to work up here?

http://www.nba.com/warriors/dance/Warrior_Girl_Index.html

 

[Section 101]

And most importantly, does anyone know if Warrior Girl member Krystal is the same Krystal that used to work up here?

http://www.nba.com/warriors/dance/Warrior_Girl_Index.html

Yes. Krystal and Summer were Kings dancers.

 

[fansinceday1]

Channel 40 reported that David Taylor wants 90 days to study the financial aspect of the railyard arena.
Crandel said that he thinks the cities stubborness will end up pushing the kings out of sacramento. Im fully on board with the natomas group. Stop talking and go with the plan that already has the infastructure already in place. Even Grant Napier admitted that building it in natomas would be a lot cheaper and AT THIS POINT has the best chance of actually getting done.

We are in danger of seeing our esteemed politicians talk the kings right out of sacramento.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Channel 40 reported that David Taylor wants 90 days to study the financial aspect of the railyard arena.
Crandel said that he thinks the cities stubborness will end up pushing the kings out of sacramento. Im fully on board with the natomas group. Stop talking and go with the plan that already has the infastructure already in place. Even Grant Napier admitted that building it in natomas would be a lot cheaper and AT THIS POINT has the best chance of actually getting done.

We are in danger of seeing our esteemed politicians talk the kings right out of sacramento.

It is a shame that they're focusing on the hardest projects to get done. This is no time for long shots. Pick the most practical solution (Natomas) and put all your energy into that. I'm surprised how many fans are drinking the downtown arena kool-aid. Sure, we all know that in a perfect world a downtown arena is ideal, good for the region, blah blah blah. This isn't a perfect world though, this is Sacramento and the primary objective here is keeping The Kings in town, not "revitalizing downtown" and all that jazz. The day The Kings pack up and leave town, lots of folks will be saying, gee, maybe we should have pushed for Natomas.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Do you guys live in Natomas? Invested in business interests there? Unless it is fully self financed it isn't happening. Public dollars won't go to develop a plan at the city limits. When public dollars come into play you look at what benefits the most people and that tends to be a plan in the heart of the city.

If Natomas is so great and easy and can actually be financed for peanuts then someone could have stepped up by now with a plan to do it. They don't need the city's approval if they have the money, just get the Maloofs on board. But you know what? It's a short sighted move for an arena in an undesirable location that fans would call to replace in 15-20 years with a downtown arena like 95% of all other major sports teams have when gas is $10+ a gallon and nobody wants to drive out there.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Do you guys live in Natomas? Invested in business interests there? Unless it is fully self financed it isn't happening. Public dollars won't go to develop a plan at the city limits. When public dollars come into play you look at what benefits the most people and that tends to be a plan in the heart of the city.

If Natomas is so great and easy and can actually be financed for peanuts then someone could have stepped up by now with a plan to do it. They don't need the city's approval if they have the money, just get the Maloofs on board. But you know what? It's a short sighted move for an arena in an undesirable location that fans would call to replace in 15-20 years with a downtown arena like 95% of all other major sports teams have when gas is $10+ a gallon and nobody wants to drive out there.

The current site is only a few miles from downtown as it is. It has easy access from 99 and 80. If you live in Rocklin, Granite Bay, Carmichael, Orangevale, North Highlands, Antelope, North Sac, Rio Linda, Fair Oaks, West Sac, Citrus Heights, Roseville, etc. then Natomas is more convenient than going downtown. More people live in the Sacramento suburbs than in the city limits. A downtown location is really only more convenient for those who live downtown.

 

[Warhawk]

A new arena would be a CITY facility, and as such the CITY has a say in where it is to be located. They want it downtown, not out in Natomas. By placing it downtown they hope to kickstart development of the railyards, place it near light rail to reduce need for vehicular parking, and try to help revitalize the downtown area.

Looking at just the existing access, parking, etc., yes, Natomas makes the most sense. But the problem is always $$$. And whoever controls the $$$ has control. MSE can't do it on their own. The sale of the Natomas properties will be one of the main items that helps finance an arena if a deal does indeed come together (based on everything we have heard so far).

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The current site is only a few miles from downtown as it is. It has easy access from 99 and 80. If you live in Rocklin, Granite Bay, Carmichael, Orangevale, North Highlands, Antelope, North Sac, Rio Linda, Fair Oaks, West Sac, Citrus Heights, Roseville, etc. then Natomas is more convenient than going downtown. More people live in the Sacramento suburbs than in the city limits. A downtown location is really only more convenient for those who live downtown.

I lived in Carmichael when I had access to season tickets and it was always a chore to drive to Arco, I'd much rather have gone downtown. And certainly when I lived in East Sac and midtown and Land Park and Freeport I'd rather go downtown.

All of that aside, people that live further out are likely to come in for the game and get out. The idea behind a downtown arena is more about building a destination that keeps people in the area before and after the games. And so yes, that means catering to people who live closer in to the heart of the city and not those who live out in the suburbs or even outside the city.

 

[Spike]

What do you know, you live in Portland!

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself - I've received a similar insult recently, and thought I'd pass it on.)

The current Arco location was convenient to myself and my friends who would routinely make the trek from Chico, but in the grand scheme of things, I just want an arena done. As long as the logistics of getting in and out are sound, I'll be cool with wherever. (Mass transit, anyone?)
Ultimately, the thing that the city needs to realize is that even though it is Sacramento's team, there are A LOT of fans who drive quite a ways to support the team. It's not like your usual big city team that's only supported (or only needs support) from the city residents - the outsiders spend a fair amount of money supporting the Kings as well.

 

[fansinceday1]

Unfortunately the city is populated with people like Pdx who do not want an arena unless it is done downtown. How many years have to pass before you people realize that it will not happen at the railyards or downtown. Pdx, id be comfortable betting you $5000 that the kings will leave before a shove full of dirt is turned at the railyards, downtown, or cal expo. Ive witnessed the ineptitude of the sacramento elites my whole life.
The consesus is downtown would be the perfect location. IF we lived in a perfect world. God i hope you downtown arena people realize this before its too late. Hell, it may already be too late.

 

[JB_kings]

I looked at the Natomas plan. The Maloofs would never accept the terms with ticket revenue. It's also not grounded in reality with PSL targets of 10,000 in sales. They came up with a plan, but it's not one that all parties would accept. Now if they included some public funding and did a ticket surcharge of $2 instead of trying to grab 50% of every ticket sold, you might at least get the Maloofs to the table and talking. Yes it would be cheaper to build in Natomas. But if the city is being pressed into building this arena, they really do get to decide where it goes.