ASW continued: Day 3 of Arena meetings - DEAL REACHED

#61
So whats going to happen to ARCO? So many great games and memories there.
No idea. But personally I think it would make one heck of a nice hospital and medical center for a huge health provider like Kaiser. It just so happens that they have very old and dated facilities on Morse Ave. with poor access. And they have been known to have some very deep pockets for building these huge complexes. I have no inside knowledge, but it's sort of an obvious fit.
 
#62
The city will collect the revenue from the leased out parking lots during arena events; during Kings games, that money will be split with MS&E. (So the parking operator will be taking non-event revenue from the structures and lots. So, from downtown workers and visitors, basically.)
Well this is interesting. How is the parking deal worth 200 million if the city/team is taking the event revenue?
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#64
No idea. But personally I think it would make one heck of a nice hospital and medical center for a huge health provider like Kaiser. It just so happens that they have very old and dated facilities on Morse Ave. with poor access. And they have been known to have some very deep pockets for building these huge complexes. I have no inside knowledge, but it's sort of an obvious fit.
Yeah, a hospital or technical complex/green technology center may be an ideal fit. And work better for Natomas!

Downtown Sac has tons of folks 8-5, but then has no real draw downtow in the evening. An arena will do that.

Natomas has need for jobs, but an arena only draws folks in the evening and strands them in a sea of parking. A hospital would draw folks 24 hours a day and supply a steady stream of customers to adjacent facilities. A win-win.
 
#65
ICON/Taylor are covering the cost overruns. More reason for them to keep it on schedule !
Yes, that was a big question to be answered, too. I think everything the naysayers have complained about over the years has pretty much been covered. The one thing they need to get is that the city will monetize a city asset (parking), but that money will be used to build another city asset. This arena will be owned by the city.

The other thing they don't understand is that it would be beyond ill-advised to use money from monetizing parking to do anything other than capital improvements for the long term. To use such money to fill budget gaps merely leaves you with the same budget problems in a couple of years, when the money is gone and you no longer control that asset.

By the way, the lease that gets worked out on the parking could possibly include the city getting some amount of the revenue, although that would mean less money upfront from any bidder.

Some folks don't know it, but there was a ticket surcharge on tickets at Arco after the $70 million loan deal. The amount of surcharge depended on the cost of the ticket. Lower ticket prices had lower surcharges. I'm sure it will be similar in this deal, which is why the reference is to a 3% to 5% surcharge.

One final note. The term sheet, even if approved by the council is a non-binding agreement. It does give the city an out, if they fail to come up with their share of the money. (I suspect it would be mainly is the parking funds don't come close to what is estimated. I don't expect that to be a problem, though.) To me, that means it should be easier for council members to support, if they are teetering. I still expect Sheedy, D. Fong and probably Bonnie Pannel to vote no. I didn't realize Panell hated KJ so much. She may not want to support him in this, his biggest agenda.

I'm nervous about who could be voted onto the city council that could shake things up. Sheedy will be gone and so will R. Fong.

We still need to keep up the pro-arena pressure until there's an actual ground-breaking.
 
#66
Yes, that was a big question to be answered, too. I think everything the naysayers have complained about over the years has pretty much been covered. The one thing they need to get is that the city will monetize a city asset (parking), but that money will be used to build another city asset. This arena will be owned by the city.

The other thing they don't understand is that it would be beyond ill-advised to use money from monetizing parking to do anything other than capital improvements for the long term. To use such money to fill budget gaps merely leaves you with the same budget problems in a couple of years, when the money is gone and you no longer control that asset.

By the way, the lease that gets worked out on the parking could possibly include the city getting some amount of the revenue, although that would mean less money upfront from any bidder.

Some folks don't know it, but there was a ticket surcharge on tickets at Arco after the $70 million loan deal. The amount of surcharge depended on the cost of the ticket. Lower ticket prices had lower surcharges. I'm sure it will be similar in this deal, which is why the reference is to a 3% to 5% surcharge.

One final note. The term sheet, even if approved by the council is a non-binding agreement. It does give the city an out, if they fail to come up with their share of the money. (I suspect it would be mainly is the parking funds don't come close to what is estimated. I don't expect that to be a problem, though.) To me, that means it should be easier for council members to support, if they are teetering. I still expect Sheedy, D. Fong and probably Bonnie Pannel to vote no. I didn't realize Panell hated KJ so much. She may not want to support him in this, his biggest agenda.

I'm nervous about who could be voted onto the city council that could shake things up. Sheedy will be gone and so will R. Fong.

We still need to keep up the pro-arena pressure until there's an actual ground-breaking.
Yeah Panell was always pro arena it seemed, it surprised me when she was swayed because of her Anti KJ-ness. I hope she jumps back on the bandwagon.
 
#70
I just allowed myself to imagine the Kings opener at the new arena. Whatever the name of the new arena is, Arco thunder will be there in full voice! I'll be so proud of Sacramento and just think how proud our team will be to play in a beautiful new arena.

All I know is it will be one of the happiest days of my life, if this comes to pass. Sacramento's my home. I want what's best for it's future and I think the rail yards will be something to be really proud of, along with the redevelopment of K street, the renovation of the Community Center Theater.

In my imagination it becomes a wonderful downtown that showcases the best of Sacramento past and present. :)
 
#71
I just allowed myself to imagine the Kings opener at the new arena. Whatever the name of the new arena is, Arco thunder will be there in full voice! I'll be so proud of Sacramento and just think how proud our team will be to play in a beautiful new arena.

All I know is it will be one of the happiest days of my life, if this comes to pass. Sacramento's my home. I want what's best for it's future and I think the rail yards will be something to be really proud of, along with the redevelopment of K street, the renovation of the Community Center Theater.

In my imagination it becomes a wonderful downtown that showcases the best of Sacramento past and present. :)
Am I the only one secretly hoping that ARCO decides to bid on naming rights again? :eek:
 
#73
Am I the only one secretly hoping that ARCO decides to bid on naming rights again? :eek:
That would be the sweetest outcome... Arco III. But the company doesn't really exist anymore, or at least in the same form it did for the bulk of the years when it had its name on the building. At best it's a subsidiary of BP, but I don't think that it's even that structured. I think it's more like BP is continuing to use the name on some gas stations, but Arco as an entity doesn't really exist anymore, certainly not to the extent that they would be paying millions of dollars for naming rights.
 
#74
That would be the sweetest outcome... Arco III. But the company doesn't really exist anymore, or at least in the same form it did for the bulk of the years when it had its name on the building. At best it's a subsidiary of BP, but I don't think that it's even that structured. I think it's more like BP is continuing to use the name on some gas stations, but Arco as an entity doesn't really exist anymore, certainly not to the extent that they would be paying millions of dollars for naming rights.
Google Arena!? Or comcast center?
 
#75
That would be the sweetest outcome... Arco III. But the company doesn't really exist anymore, or at least in the same form it did for the bulk of the years when it had its name on the building. At best it's a subsidiary of BP, but I don't think that it's even that structured. I think it's more like BP is continuing to use the name on some gas stations, but Arco as an entity doesn't really exist anymore, certainly not to the extent that they would be paying millions of dollars for naming rights.
Funny since I can think of about 5 Arco stations within 5 miles of my house. They even have BP across the street.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#76
Yes, that was a big question to be answered, too. I think everything the naysayers have complained about over the years has pretty much been covered. The one thing they need to get is that the city will monetize a city asset (parking), but that money will be used to build another city asset. This arena will be owned by the city.

The other thing they don't understand is that it would be beyond ill-advised to use money from monetizing parking to do anything other than capital improvements for the long term. To use such money to fill budget gaps merely leaves you with the same budget problems in a couple of years, when the money is gone and you no longer control that asset.

By the way, the lease that gets worked out on the parking could possibly include the city getting some amount of the revenue, although that would mean less money upfront from any bidder.

Some folks don't know it, but there was a ticket surcharge on tickets at Arco after the $70 million loan deal. The amount of surcharge depended on the cost of the ticket. Lower ticket prices had lower surcharges. I'm sure it will be similar in this deal, which is why the reference is to a 3% to 5% surcharge.

One final note. The term sheet, even if approved by the council is a non-binding agreement. It does give the city an out, if they fail to come up with their share of the money. (I suspect it would be mainly is the parking funds don't come close to what is estimated. I don't expect that to be a problem, though.) To me, that means it should be easier for council members to support, if they are teetering. I still expect Sheedy, D. Fong and probably Bonnie Pannel to vote no. I didn't realize Panell hated KJ so much. She may not want to support him in this, his biggest agenda.

I'm nervous about who could be voted onto the city council that could shake things up. Sheedy will be gone and so will R. Fong.

We still need to keep up the pro-arena pressure until there's an actual ground-breaking.
I think Fong was actually on the negotiation team with KJ, Cohn, and Shirley. Not sure which Fong you're referring to.
 
#81
"Why can't we build the arena by the Roseville Galleria?"

"The Cubs are still playing in Wrigley Field, why can't the Kings stay in Arco?"
Is he atleast educating these fools? BTW I don't get why they are complaining for, this isn't going to cost the city any money. It's going to add jobs and a lot of cash to Sac's economy over the long term. The people who live in Sac and want it to stay the same are frigging stupid.
 
#82
I'm actually shocked about that open date too. I guess that would mean they would have to put the shovels in the ground sometime this year to be able to reach a target date that soon...
Actually, if they broke ground this summer, the arena would open in time for the 2014-15 season. The problem is that you have to line up contractors, move the tracks and go through a bunch of other political bs so I'm guessing that they break ground in 2013.

Also, do they have to do an environmental impact review? That alone takes a year.
 
Last edited:

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#87
Yeah my bad I think you're right, that sounds right actually. I have to imagine that he KJ and Cohn are 3 of the 5 votes we need. Only need 2 more. Hopefully can get Angelique Ashby's vote and Schenirer?
Ashby's been behind the arena. Not sure about Schenirer
 
#89
Well this is interesting. How is the parking deal worth 200 million if the city/team is taking the event revenue?
I wondered about that detail. Up to this point, I hadn't seen it even hinted that those bidding on the parking where essentially only bidding on daytime parking.
 
#90
I wondered about that detail. Up to this point, I hadn't seen it even hinted that those bidding on the parking where essentially only bidding on daytime parking.
There is no way that this is a suprise to all involved, so I don't know why we would worry about that. The NBA, Maloofs and City feel they have the numbers worked out. This would not be the point in time for them to be guessing about what the city could put in to funding this thing.