City And Kings Talks On Arena Heating Up

[Mike0476]

Now, according to the Mayor, the two sides are, “negotiating at a higher degree than they had been in the past.” Kings' representatives and city staff are drawing up term sheets and a financial plan. The talks also include developer, ICON/Taylor, and, potential arena operator, the Aschutz Entertainment Group.

Items being discussed include how much will the Kings pay as a tenant, what will happen to the outstanding loan with the city and what AEG will put up to run the sports and entertainment complex. All of those are coming on the basis that the city will make anywhere from $200-million to 250-million from the sale of public garages and spaces in downtown. The remaining gap from the $387-million estimated price tag would need to be closed by the AEG, the NBA and other sponsorship opportunities.

To increase the odds of meeting that drop dead date set by the Maloofs to get an arena plan in place, the Mayor wants to move quickly. That is why he does expect a vote on “every element or pieces” of the parking sale plan at the December 13th council meeting.
The hope is to have a detailed arena financing plan by mid-January.

Read more: http://www.kfbk.com/pages/robmcalliste.html?article=9448673#ixzz1fAFUkLaP
​

 

[Bricklayer]

Read more: http://www.kfbk.com/pages/robmcalliste.html?article=9448673#ixzz1fAFUkLaP
​

Thanks for the update, and glad for so much more urgency than last winter when the pace seemed dawdling.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

A vote on "every element or piece" of the parking sale (lease?) plan on Dec. 13th? Sounds great to me! I assume that KJ wouldn't be calling it to a vote if he didn't know he had the support. Then we just have to survive the inevitable lawsuit from the naysayers trying to force a public vote.

 

[Mike0476]

Thanks for the update, and glad for so much more urgency than last winter when the pace seemed dawdling.

A year ago we had no idea the Maloofs were in secret talks of skipping town and now we know why (their finances).

Now we have a deadline and thank God we have Mayor Kevin Johnson leading the way. I do not want to imagine where we would be with our former mayors in the same situation.

 

[Mike0476]

A vote on "every element or piece" of the parking sale (lease?) plan on Dec. 13th? Sounds great to me! I assume that KJ wouldn't be calling it to a vote if he didn't know he had the support. Then we just have to survive the inevitable lawsuit from the naysayers trying to force a public vote.

More than likely the council will be briefed before hand and already know where their vote will go.

It will still be nice to see hundreds of people attend the city council meeting to show their support in building a new downtown arena for Sacramento and its region.

 

[Return To Glory]

Thanks for the update Mike. It's good to hear we're continually moving forward

 

[Capt. Factorial]

More than likely the council will be briefed before hand and already know where their vote will go.

It will still be nice to see hundreds of people attend the city council meeting to show their support in building a new downtown arena for Sacramento and its region.

Hopefully we can get that many people to show up - I'd hate to see the three Purpleketeers all by their lonesome like last time!

 

[Mike0476]

Hopefully we can get that many people to show up - I'd hate to see the three Purpleketeers all by their lonesome like last time!

I am counting on KF.com members to show up. As always I'll be there.

 

[PurpleHaze]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/30/4088454/marcos-breton-city-parking-funds.html

Marcos Breton has been staunch ally in effort to get a new Sports & Entertainment arena in Sacramento. As he points out, need to generate funding via various revenue sources remains unresolved issue as the clock ticks relentlessly with just 12 weeks remaining to possible Armagaddon. Legality of parking fees (critical piece), lack of regional participation (appauling/depressing/devastating) - all of it still BIG hurdles.

 

[Mike0476]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/30/4088454/marcos-breton-city-parking-funds.html

Marcos Breton has been staunch ally in effort to get a new Sports & Entertainment arena in Sacramento. As he points out, need to generate funding via various revenue sources remains unresolved issue as the clock ticks relentlessly with just 12 weeks remaining to possible Armagaddon. Legality of parking fees (critical piece), lack of regional participation (appauling/depressing/devastating) - all of it still BIG hurdles.

Yet the CAVE people keep bringing up the same tired excuses of we need to fix law enforcement, fire, schools, etc. They don't want a sales tax to help with that let alone if there was a cure for cancer.

I heard the same excuses in 2006 and it's almost 2012 but it's still a broken record player. The people they have put into office years ago have done nothing to better Sacramento and have not offered any ways to help improve those general services. We are still at square one and finally we have some real leadership and someone willingly to take a risk with Mayor Kevin Johnson.

I wonder if they even realize how our economy and quality of life can change as a result of not only losing the team but the arena too. I don't want to hear the "renovate" idea because that's not going to happen as no one will pay for it and no one else will touch the arena to maintain and operate it once the Maloofs skip town.

This would have been a lot easier with a small sales tax like in Q&R.

I hope many KF.com members who live near by will attend the Dec. 13th meeting and have your voices heard and show your support. Even if you live in the Bay Area or Chico, please attend.

 

[Warhawk]

I plan to attend. I hope lots of others join me.

 

[kennadog]

I have to drive to the meetings from Oroville (an hour and a half) folks. I'll make for this meeting, too.

I heard some mention on the TV news that they might rollover the critical vote to January, which would still be in time for the March 1st deadline. I wasn't paying close enough attention, though. I think not being able to seriously negotiate with the league during the lock-out put them a bit behind. I guess it depends on how smoothly thosenegotiations proceed.

By the way, yes Breton is supporting the new arena, but his article had a couple of problems. One, he mentioned the parking lease as a major source of the needed revenue, he made it sound like that was the city's only potential contribution source. Not true. There are other possible sources, some very likely. Selling city-owned vacant land, cell-phone towers on the arena, advertising signage, arena naming rights, etc. It's just that leasing out public parking (or sale) would bring in a significant amount, relative to other potential sources. The major stumbling block is whether it's legal under city and state laws. Other cities have done this in other states.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I plan to attend. I hope lots of others join me.

I've got it on my calendar, so I plan to be there!

 

[Hoovtrain]

Hopefully this is not going to pose a huge problem.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/02/4094606/parking-spots-coming-up-shorter.html

 

[kennadog]

Hopefully this is not going to pose a huge problem.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/02/4094606/parking-spots-coming-up-shorter.html

Saw that. Could be an issue. Most important to know first is if the city can legally even do this with it's parking.

Agaion, Breton saidf part of the problem was using public money for private use. Huh? The city will own the arena. Sounds like a public use to me.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Hopefully this is not going to pose a huge problem.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/02/4094606/parking-spots-coming-up-shorter.html

I don't think this changes much from what we heard as of last week:

Multiple sources familiar with the details of the project told The Bee this week that the city may be able get $200 million – or slightly more – in upfront cash by leasing its parking operations to a private company. ... Shirey would not confirm that figure, but he said the new estimates are lower than originally believed. Officials have never said publicly what their early estimates were.

This suggests to me that the $200M+ is the actual, current estimate, and that the City Council had originally hoped that the value would be more. Of course, I don't know if the entire wad from leasing out the parking would go towards the arena, but if so that's a huge chunk and the remainder should be pretty easy to cover via private investment and user fees (obviously financed). That's before any other revenue sources the city might decide to use (land sales, hotel tax, etc.) but I don't think that $200M is a bad-news number.

 

[Livinthedream]

Half the cost up front from one funding source. Not bad. Don't underestimate how important that huge chunk of upfront money is. Less financing reduces the overall cost of the project, which puts more revenue in the pocket of the city faster.

 

[Mike0476]

The city of Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers have a deal to build a $1.02 billion stadium near Great America.

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19460039

Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bank and Bank of America have agreed to loan the city and team a combined $850 million to pay for the lion's share of the construction, which could start as soon as next year. But critics are alarmed by a major shift in the funding plan that emerged Friday: The city will take on more than twice as much debt as was promised to voters, even though the 49ers vow they won't leave the city holding the bag.

Revenues from the stadium, such as ticket sales, stadium naming rights and the team's rent, are supposed to pay back most of the loans. The rest will come from the NFL, which is expected to chip in $150 million; the city's redevelopment agency, which will contribute $40 million; and a local hotel tax expected to generate $35 million.

But city and team leaders are betting the stadium will create so much profit that they will be able to pay off the loans in about 25 years using only money generated by the stadium. If their estimates don't pan out, the 49ers would be on the hook to pay the difference through higher rent payments to the city. The team would also fork over any extra construction costs that may come up. The city's general budget can't be touched, according to the deal.

"This is not about the profits of the team, it is about securing the future of the franchise in the Bay Area in the long term," said team CFO Larry MacNeil. "Candlestick (Park) is just not a sustainable model for the 49ers."

In addition to the loans, the 49ers will contribute $150 million to building the stadium, largely through luxury suites they have already sold. The final $20 million is expected to come from various revenues expected before construction starts, such as season ticket sales.

49ers CEO Jed York has already approved the 75-page deal and the City Council is expected to follow suit Dec. 13, cementing a "formal commitment" from both sides.

The deal calls for the 49ers to pay the city about $30 million per year to lease the city-owned land, a large increase from the previous estimate of $5 million.

The team would operate the stadium year-round, and take on operating costs during the six months of the season. The city would pay for the cost to run the stadium during the offseason, and the two entities would split the revenues from non-NFL events such as concerts, which would carry a $4 ticket surcharge. It's still unclear whether they'd charge a tax on NFL games.

The lease would last 40 years, with options to extend the deal an additional 20 years.

Paying for the $1.02 billion 49ers stadium

$450 million: Bank loan to the city's stadium authority
$400 million: Bank loan to the 49ers, who pass the loan on to the city's stadium authority
$150 million: 49ers' payments, mostly from luxury suite sales
$20 million: City's stadium authority payments, from existing stadium revenues