Feb 8th arena meeting
- Thread starter Mike0476
- Start date
I watched the meeting online. I thought all the proposals had good people on their teams with strong resumes. It was no suprise that ICON - Taylor was chosen to go forward on the 90 day timeline to come up with some hard numbers. It seemed like the council was already leaning that way before these past few weekes. So I'm guessing this was more about saving some public face because the task force opinions came off as biased and they needed the council to have their decision somewhat distanced from the task force. It seems like there were a few negative comments thrown in that direction.
Here is where I think some of the basic differences between the groups came and why they went with ICON - Taylor:
CORE - The idea for building at the Westfield site is interesting and they have done quite a good job of lining up their team. Where I think they hurt themselves is that even they admit it's going to take about 177 million to buy up the Westfield property and other buildings in the planned site. This drives their cost up to an estimated $630 million which is almost 1/3 more the cost projections of a railyard site. That just makes the gap too large for the public to bear burden.
Convergence - Had the nice proposal and good presentation. Then got torpedoed with the obvious question from council about what if Cal Expo won't come to the table. After all the stuff they went through, Kamilos had a pretty weak reply that they would have to change their plan and go with public assistance. It's just too slippery and I think everyone has had enough of slippery. I would put this one in last place over all the four plans. In fact I would toss them out altogether for their last failure.
Natomas ESC - They had quite a bit of public speakers supporting their proposal. They have a pretty good team and it looks like they have a ready to start plan. The problem is still the same though as we've seen all along. They have identified funding sources from the Kings without even having conversations. So how can you toss around PSLs and percentages of ticket revenues and not even show you have input from the source of that revenue? I think they would get into negotiations with the Maloofs and find out that they had assumed way too much. This of course would result in a gap that requires public assistance. So much for their advantage.
ICON -Taylor was detailed about their 90 day process and what they would deliver. They also shared what I had come to find out from my research. That these guys quoting $500-600 million dollar buildings are trying to scare the public off with bad numbers. The true cost is probably between $300-400 million. There are a number of NBA level arenas recently built in this range in downtown locations. Given that the city already owns the land in the railyard, the first public asset to be used will be part of that land. This also lowers the funds needed to get the arena built.
So up next is 90 days for ICON-Taylor than another 60 days for the council to work with them on their numbers and decide if or how the funding gap can be filled.
Here is where I think some of the basic differences between the groups came and why they went with ICON - Taylor:
CORE - The idea for building at the Westfield site is interesting and they have done quite a good job of lining up their team. Where I think they hurt themselves is that even they admit it's going to take about 177 million to buy up the Westfield property and other buildings in the planned site. This drives their cost up to an estimated $630 million which is almost 1/3 more the cost projections of a railyard site. That just makes the gap too large for the public to bear burden.
Convergence - Had the nice proposal and good presentation. Then got torpedoed with the obvious question from council about what if Cal Expo won't come to the table. After all the stuff they went through, Kamilos had a pretty weak reply that they would have to change their plan and go with public assistance. It's just too slippery and I think everyone has had enough of slippery. I would put this one in last place over all the four plans. In fact I would toss them out altogether for their last failure.
Natomas ESC - They had quite a bit of public speakers supporting their proposal. They have a pretty good team and it looks like they have a ready to start plan. The problem is still the same though as we've seen all along. They have identified funding sources from the Kings without even having conversations. So how can you toss around PSLs and percentages of ticket revenues and not even show you have input from the source of that revenue? I think they would get into negotiations with the Maloofs and find out that they had assumed way too much. This of course would result in a gap that requires public assistance. So much for their advantage.
ICON -Taylor was detailed about their 90 day process and what they would deliver. They also shared what I had come to find out from my research. That these guys quoting $500-600 million dollar buildings are trying to scare the public off with bad numbers. The true cost is probably between $300-400 million. There are a number of NBA level arenas recently built in this range in downtown locations. Given that the city already owns the land in the railyard, the first public asset to be used will be part of that land. This also lowers the funds needed to get the arena built.
So up next is 90 days for ICON-Taylor than another 60 days for the council to work with them on their numbers and decide if or how the funding gap can be filled.
ICON discussed talking to concert promoters about needing more truck loading docks and safe ones.
Penguins arena: $300 million.
ICON is on top of their excellent research with facts on why ARCO is obsolete and info on new arenas built across USA.
ICON said $600 million price tag on new arena is over stated.
ICON still has a 6 step process.
ICON has done analysis on revenue of arenas as well as expenses. Their approach is very realistic and impressive.
David Taylor is now talking about Natomas. Said it has to be addressed and talk to other developers on what to do if arena leaves.
CORE is up. Their main guy is out of town for 2nd meeting in a row. Bad form!
Mr. Larry Kelley is not in attendance and CORE seems unprepared and bringing up what they did in North Highlands as to why they should be picked.
Just because Mr. Kelley was a former minority owner of Kings isn't a good enough reason to pick CORE. He's skipped out on 2 meetings now.
CORE says $375 for construction for arena. City investment (land) and equity financing, gap investment of $100 million, parking bonds, etc.
CORE won't tell who their equity partner is unless they are selected. Said arena would cost $350 million. Said they can do this with or without Kings.
Convergence said it has money to move on with project. Korean steel company and one over seas bank are in if selected.
Convergence said it still has good relationship with Cal Expo.
Convergence said it will drop $2 million tomorrow and ready to get working.
Beckett and Hunt mentioned for development and construction of arenas including Phoenix, Orlando, Houston and San Antonio.
Natomas group takes the stage.
Skanska is a local builder and ranks as 4th largest builder in USA.
Natomas will partner up with Citi to secure financing.
Natomas has concern for tax payers and infrastructure will save $100-200 million.
Natomas group doesn't want to tear down ARCO, said it has good bones for other usage.
All 4 groups have spoken. Public will now speak.
Strong support for new arena. Brought up his 7 month old daughter. Donations should be done as Crocker Art raised $100 million.
Brian said we need to minimize the risks and wants arena in Natomas.
Jean said arena is important as it's used by the region, will put people to work, and Natomas will save us money to build.
Ed Coop (sp) wants arena in Natomas. It makes sense financially and if built else where it will disrupt Natomas.
Another Natomas resident speaks up for Natomas. At least there are no naysayers.
Yet another Natomas supporter. They were here 2 weeks ago.
Q&A with all 4 groups now.
CM Ashby asked ICON about feasibility on Natomas as site of arena or development.
CM Ashby mentioned public wearing Kings jerseys in City Hall (hey that's me).
CM Ashby: We need finite analysis and flush out the details. Would like ICON to talk to Natomas.
CM Cohn: It comes down to financing and I want straight answers with today's economy. He is all for Natomas with no public dollars or if public money is used, what does public get out of it?
Cohn said ICON can give those straight answers.
Q&R was asked of David Taylor. Said we don't have a 2006 and city has more leverage and MSE can't say this is how it will be.
ICON: Rental car tax, food & beverage taxes, cigarette tax, land based funding but no tax increase because he would rather avoid a vote.
Someone just asked if I'm with Kingsfans.com. Yes, I am.
Convergence: Gap would be covered by Cal Expo development. Cost would go down $100 million. Council member wants arena in downtown.
It's time for feasibility study & time for vision. Need to make sure Natomas stays whole. Said we need to make a decision tonight with ICON.
CM said we need to make a decision, move forward and see a vision of Sacramento.
Sounds like City Council will pick ICON.
ICON it is and unanimously.
Just spoke with David Taylor and told him I was most impressed with his group. I thanked him too.
David Taylor then asked me for my name, told me to keep wearing my jersey and thanked me.
At this point I don't care where the new arena is built as long as it gets built.
Penguins arena: $300 million.
ICON is on top of their excellent research with facts on why ARCO is obsolete and info on new arenas built across USA.
ICON said $600 million price tag on new arena is over stated.
ICON still has a 6 step process.
ICON has done analysis on revenue of arenas as well as expenses. Their approach is very realistic and impressive.
David Taylor is now talking about Natomas. Said it has to be addressed and talk to other developers on what to do if arena leaves.
CORE is up. Their main guy is out of town for 2nd meeting in a row. Bad form!
Mr. Larry Kelley is not in attendance and CORE seems unprepared and bringing up what they did in North Highlands as to why they should be picked.
Just because Mr. Kelley was a former minority owner of Kings isn't a good enough reason to pick CORE. He's skipped out on 2 meetings now.
CORE says $375 for construction for arena. City investment (land) and equity financing, gap investment of $100 million, parking bonds, etc.
CORE won't tell who their equity partner is unless they are selected. Said arena would cost $350 million. Said they can do this with or without Kings.
Convergence said it has money to move on with project. Korean steel company and one over seas bank are in if selected.
Convergence said it still has good relationship with Cal Expo.
Convergence said it will drop $2 million tomorrow and ready to get working.
Beckett and Hunt mentioned for development and construction of arenas including Phoenix, Orlando, Houston and San Antonio.
Natomas group takes the stage.
Skanska is a local builder and ranks as 4th largest builder in USA.
Natomas will partner up with Citi to secure financing.
Natomas has concern for tax payers and infrastructure will save $100-200 million.
Natomas group doesn't want to tear down ARCO, said it has good bones for other usage.
All 4 groups have spoken. Public will now speak.
Strong support for new arena. Brought up his 7 month old daughter. Donations should be done as Crocker Art raised $100 million.
Brian said we need to minimize the risks and wants arena in Natomas.
Jean said arena is important as it's used by the region, will put people to work, and Natomas will save us money to build.
Ed Coop (sp) wants arena in Natomas. It makes sense financially and if built else where it will disrupt Natomas.
Another Natomas resident speaks up for Natomas. At least there are no naysayers.
Yet another Natomas supporter. They were here 2 weeks ago.
Q&A with all 4 groups now.
CM Ashby asked ICON about feasibility on Natomas as site of arena or development.
CM Ashby mentioned public wearing Kings jerseys in City Hall (hey that's me).
CM Ashby: We need finite analysis and flush out the details. Would like ICON to talk to Natomas.
CM Cohn: It comes down to financing and I want straight answers with today's economy. He is all for Natomas with no public dollars or if public money is used, what does public get out of it?
Cohn said ICON can give those straight answers.
Q&R was asked of David Taylor. Said we don't have a 2006 and city has more leverage and MSE can't say this is how it will be.
ICON: Rental car tax, food & beverage taxes, cigarette tax, land based funding but no tax increase because he would rather avoid a vote.
Someone just asked if I'm with Kingsfans.com. Yes, I am.
Convergence: Gap would be covered by Cal Expo development. Cost would go down $100 million. Council member wants arena in downtown.
It's time for feasibility study & time for vision. Need to make sure Natomas stays whole. Said we need to make a decision tonight with ICON.
CM said we need to make a decision, move forward and see a vision of Sacramento.
Sounds like City Council will pick ICON.
ICON it is and unanimously.
Just spoke with David Taylor and told him I was most impressed with his group. I thanked him too.
David Taylor then asked me for my name, told me to keep wearing my jersey and thanked me.
At this point I don't care where the new arena is built as long as it gets built.
Last edited:
I actually didn't feel that the CORE group had a strong proposal at all. The main guy behind the group was absent (for the second time) and the presentation was incredibly shoddy. Typos all over the place (at least three times the Powerpoint said we'd be getting a "world GLASS facility") and the hand-drawn sketch, seemingly in crayon, trying to demonstrate that they had a plan for the current natomas site was thoroughly laughable. You have two weeks and nobody on your entire team can put together an AutoCad sketch of the current Natomas site? Terrible. Who are the key players in your team? "Anybody who wants to be! Everybody will want to join us!" Simply terrible.
Actually, I didn't think Kamilos answered the question at all, and there was another question he didn't answer, something along the lines of why the teams couldn't work together. He said it was a difficult question but didn't attempt an answer. The strength of the Convergence group is really in the funding that they've lined up, and in the fact that they say that through Cal Expo land deals (which they're "confident" will go through this time...not that I was convinced) they would be able to do the whole shebang without any public funds. I'd like to see some of that funding trickle over to the ICON group. Not that it would ever happen, but...
ESC has had a lineup of supporters both times, but for some reason they never felt like a credible proposal. The strength in Natomas (outside of the fact that some on the city council seem dead set on building an arena in the railyards, or else) is that the infrastructure is already there, and there won't be any worry about new traffic congestion as the current Natomas site has very adequate traffic flow (one thing that certainly WAS done right there!) The absolute nail in the coffin was when Councilwoman Ashby (who represents Natomas and always seemed on the side of ESC) asked Taylor/ICON about their insistence on doing an arena downtown and their reply was that they'd consider all sites, downtown, Natomas, Expo, etc. That seemed to win her over and from that point there wasn't much question how things were going to go down.
ICON was definitely the strongest proposal - they were highly focused on exactly what needs to be done NOW, which is the financial feasibility study. Their impressive 80-page document on what they do for a financial feasibility study was the home run of the night. In 90 days, these guys will have talked extensively with MSE, with the city, with potential sources of funding, with architects, etc. and they will bring back an assessment of what it's going to cost and how it can be done - and I'm confident, as was the city council, that it will be a top notch report, even if it says "sorry, no can do in this climate".
So it's a matter of check back in 90 days. We'll have a much better idea of how things are going then. On the bright side, I get the feeling that the entire city council wants this done - every single member. We know KJ is behind it. With some hard work on alternative funding and the full support of the city, the public component might be small enough, and easy enough to sell, to pass a vote. Just maybe we can get this done. Keep those fingers crossed.
Actually, I didn't think Kamilos answered the question at all, and there was another question he didn't answer, something along the lines of why the teams couldn't work together. He said it was a difficult question but didn't attempt an answer. The strength of the Convergence group is really in the funding that they've lined up, and in the fact that they say that through Cal Expo land deals (which they're "confident" will go through this time...not that I was convinced) they would be able to do the whole shebang without any public funds. I'd like to see some of that funding trickle over to the ICON group. Not that it would ever happen, but...
ESC has had a lineup of supporters both times, but for some reason they never felt like a credible proposal. The strength in Natomas (outside of the fact that some on the city council seem dead set on building an arena in the railyards, or else) is that the infrastructure is already there, and there won't be any worry about new traffic congestion as the current Natomas site has very adequate traffic flow (one thing that certainly WAS done right there!) The absolute nail in the coffin was when Councilwoman Ashby (who represents Natomas and always seemed on the side of ESC) asked Taylor/ICON about their insistence on doing an arena downtown and their reply was that they'd consider all sites, downtown, Natomas, Expo, etc. That seemed to win her over and from that point there wasn't much question how things were going to go down.
ICON was definitely the strongest proposal - they were highly focused on exactly what needs to be done NOW, which is the financial feasibility study. Their impressive 80-page document on what they do for a financial feasibility study was the home run of the night. In 90 days, these guys will have talked extensively with MSE, with the city, with potential sources of funding, with architects, etc. and they will bring back an assessment of what it's going to cost and how it can be done - and I'm confident, as was the city council, that it will be a top notch report, even if it says "sorry, no can do in this climate".
So it's a matter of check back in 90 days. We'll have a much better idea of how things are going then. On the bright side, I get the feeling that the entire city council wants this done - every single member. We know KJ is behind it. With some hard work on alternative funding and the full support of the city, the public component might be small enough, and easy enough to sell, to pass a vote. Just maybe we can get this done. Keep those fingers crossed.
After all we've been through the past 10 years with this Bismark of all tasks, getting our beloved city a new arena...I don't know what to think of this. Taylor has built alot of things in this area...yes...but not sure if I'm a believer in ANYONE getting us our shiny new arena that we've been spinning our wheels in mud the past 10 years in 'trying' to get. My optimism is VERY guarded at this point, even with Taylor and his number crunchers, powerpoint presentations and resume of downtown venues in existence. I'm not expecting ANYTHING in 90 days...yay or nay. I want a new arena like nothing else for this city, that would finally put the city on the right path out of inferiority and mediocrity. Stay tuned I guess...
Taylor's 90 days to deliver a solution, if they're on the clock right now ends 9 May 2011. What about that little date exactly 3 weeks from now - March 1, 2011? Seems a lot of things are still very much up in the air and basically as foggy as ever in Sac. I guess we can keep our collective fingers crossed that somehow this looking hopeless situation will have a miraculous savior, an out of nowhere funding mechanism for a new sports and entertainment arena - or the final shoe will sadly finally drop. Period.
The deadline to submit a request for relocation is the same every year, March 1. It has to be approved by the league, meaning other franchise owners in a vote of the board. So, under current situation the Maloofs could submit a request on March 1, 2011 or wait until next year at same time. With the CBA lock out looming all bets are off on what they may or may not do - besides the arena situation. It would probably take around 24 months to build the arena from the first day some dirt got moved.
I like that Taylor said he is willing to look at the other sites. I have zero faith that the railyards will happen. I just hope taylor and his group have a backup plan to keep the kings here. If he comes back and tells the council that the railyards will be too expensive and that they do not have a backup plan the kings are as good as gone.
This is zero hour. Last chance. Lets get it done damn it!
This is zero hour. Last chance. Lets get it done damn it!
The Taylor/ICON group has a very detailed, very specific 90-day plan for putting together a financial feasibility analysis. They left absolutely no doubt that it would be done in 90 days and that they would report back to the city at that time. That is what is going to happen in 90 days. There won't be a yes or no from the city council, there won't be a shovel in the ground, nothing like that. Just a tediously detailed (80 pages of crunched numbers is their norm) report on how much it will cost to put in an arena at the various sites, how much funding they can get from numerous sources, including the Maloofs, things like that. This is the pace to expect. Don't lose hope, these things happen slowly - but this 90 day step? It will be done.
Quite a while - it's usually like 2-3 years once the digging starts. Keep in mind that at this point, any arena will probably have some measure of committed financial support from the Kings/MSE and a long-term lease would almost certainly be a part of the whole financial deal. We don't need to hold off the Maloofs from moving the franchise until the building opens, only until the deal is finalized and moving forward. From that point, they'll be on board.
The deadline to file for relocation is March 1st of each year, I believe. With the Taylor/ICON team expecting to meet with MSE as early as this week, at this point I don't think there's much reason to believe that they will file this year unless they've already given up - in which case the 90-day feasibility study will probably be pretty gory. But, in that unfortunate and in my opinion unlikely case, we would already know that March 1st and wouldn't have to wait for the study to come out.
The deadline to file for relocation is March 1st of each year, I believe. With the Taylor/ICON team expecting to meet with MSE as early as this week, at this point I don't think there's much reason to believe that they will file this year unless they've already given up - in which case the 90-day feasibility study will probably be pretty gory. But, in that unfortunate and in my opinion unlikely case, we would already know that March 1st and wouldn't have to wait for the study to come out.
If I had to guess, and its just a guess, I would think things would be trending away from a March 1st relocation filing. This year. If it all falls though again I would almost guarantee it next year. But this year...so much depends on the status of the Palms. If it weren't for that, we have the most serious arena process to date underway, KJ had to have been talking to the Maloofs beofre he scehduled these dates. The Maloofs are still showing up to games courtside -- which would be odd if they were going to announce they were moving the team in 3 weeks. It just feels like maybe there is one final year of respite here. Doesn't have to be of course. The fanbase's shakiness could tip things. But if I had to guess I would say one more year. One summer of trying to improve the team, bring back a winner, have an arena proposal in hand, and try to stoke up the enthusiasm necessary for some sort of public funding package in support.
I think the fans are feeling a bit on the hopeless side with the arena and possible move. You have to remember this town has a GIANT inferiority complex. It helps that the team itself has some promise. But the arena and move questions have to be put to rest for the love and support to really get back to levels seen in the past.
To Mike 0476 and Capt. Factorial:
Glad you boys were at the meeting last night and got to meet you. Funny how Mike omitted any mention of my remarks. I know we all want a solution fast but having spent 1,000 hours over the past 3 years formulating "The New Cal Expo" plan I must tell you that you are praising and following the wrong Pied Piper. The headline in 90 days will be "Taylor Says Arena Doable". Of course the subtext will say only if we implement this tax and that tax, get land donations and other city concessions. In this economy it won't work no matter how they try to spin the message. If you want a financing solution look to what was done at the 1984 LA Olympics, or the 1968 Hemisfair in San Antonio, or Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, NY. All involved raising private equity capital, not debt or new taxes. You heard my remarks, now let them sink in and realize you are being led down a road to nowhere with Mr. Taylor.
Glad you boys were at the meeting last night and got to meet you. Funny how Mike omitted any mention of my remarks. I know we all want a solution fast but having spent 1,000 hours over the past 3 years formulating "The New Cal Expo" plan I must tell you that you are praising and following the wrong Pied Piper. The headline in 90 days will be "Taylor Says Arena Doable". Of course the subtext will say only if we implement this tax and that tax, get land donations and other city concessions. In this economy it won't work no matter how they try to spin the message. If you want a financing solution look to what was done at the 1984 LA Olympics, or the 1968 Hemisfair in San Antonio, or Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, NY. All involved raising private equity capital, not debt or new taxes. You heard my remarks, now let them sink in and realize you are being led down a road to nowhere with Mr. Taylor.
I believe that Mike had stopped taking notes by the time public comments came up, so that may explain why he didn't mention it. At any rate, I think this post does a good job of summarizing it.
However, whether or not the city council is making a mistake by asking the Taylor/ICON group to move forward with their financial feasibility analysis, there is nothing that Mike or I can personally do about it. We will have to wait and see and hope for the best just like everybody else. Certainly the Taylor/ICON group appeared to be the most prepared to put together the detailed analysis the city council wanted.
I respect the amount of work you have put into your plan, but it does not appear that the city council has taken your proposal seriously, considering that it was not included in the four plans evaluated by the task force. I cannot speak for why.
However, whether or not the city council is making a mistake by asking the Taylor/ICON group to move forward with their financial feasibility analysis, there is nothing that Mike or I can personally do about it. We will have to wait and see and hope for the best just like everybody else. Certainly the Taylor/ICON group appeared to be the most prepared to put together the detailed analysis the city council wanted.
I respect the amount of work you have put into your plan, but it does not appear that the city council has taken your proposal seriously, considering that it was not included in the four plans evaluated by the task force. I cannot speak for why.
Taylor's plan is a long shot. Your plan is the road to nowhere. I won't pencil out. Even if it did, the Maloofs won't go for it. Thus, its not worth wasting time on it.
I'd guess the funding gap will be $200 million. They will try to paper over some of that with some new fees and over project the returns. At the end of the day, this turns on whether there is a majority vote on the cousel to spend between 100 and 150 million from an already tight city budget without enough new funds to offset. I think that's tough, but I wouldn't bet against it.
I'd guess the funding gap will be $200 million. They will try to paper over some of that with some new fees and over project the returns. At the end of the day, this turns on whether there is a majority vote on the cousel to spend between 100 and 150 million from an already tight city budget without enough new funds to offset. I think that's tough, but I wouldn't bet against it.
I have supplied several examples of how other communities have raised equity rather than incur debt. Back in the '70's the voters of LA said no way taxpayer funds would be used for the 1984 Olympics. Sound familiar? So Peter Ueberroth went out and lined up 29 corporate sponsors who paid a minimum of $4M plus $225M in broadcast rights equalling $500M. This is for a one month event. My plan calls for raising corporate equity money from 25 sponsors who would get marketing exposure for 20 years plus a host of other benefits at Cal Expo. It is not as simple as simply raising public funds but when the voters say no this model has worked elsewhere and needs to be fully explored. However, since it's not downtown it's been ignored, dismissed and not even given a proper hearing by the taskforce. There is no reason this direction can't be explored at the same time as the Taylor team is doing their thing.
How many meetings have you attended at Cal Expo or the City Council regarding this issue? How many hours of research, analysis and presentation have you done? Show me how my plan is the road to nowhere and won't pencil out and why the Maloofs won't go for it. Your someone who seems to have all the answers but rather than unsubstantiated opinions let's hear some facts and rational analysis. I'm listening.
The 70s and 80s are not the present era where tax payer financed arenas are the norm. Nor is Sacramento NY or Los Angeles where there is actually large enough of a corporate base to pump in the dollars to buy these arenas with private money. And then the average fan can't even afford to attend the events. I know Kings tickets as is are steep for many but its a sliver of what it costs in those markets. And then to throw PSLs on top?