December 13 City Council Meeting
- Thread starter Mike0476
- Start date
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
That...was...awesome!!! Thank you Mike and EVERYONE who showed up last night!! I am SO looking forward to groundbreaking day, I will bring my entire tlfamily to this historic and incredible occasion! I know the battle isn't over yet, but took a major step closer in accomplishing what we all know should happen, and uplifting our city into what it deserves! Thanks again everyone!
Larry David
Starter
Getting the local government to study creating 200 million by privatizing parking – doable. Passed 7-2.
Get the local government to create 200 million by privatizing parking – also seems doable. But NIMBY issues like the price of parking, control, and ticket enforcement will be tougher than you might thnk.
After they have the money, getting the local government to spend 200 million on the arena – not pouring that money into their pet projects, public safety, or the sewer infrastructure problem. It’s doable … but this is where the rubber meets the road.
4 no votes would kill this. There are already 2, and this from the bee “Several council members who voted to move forward added they would not support a final financing plan that negatively affects the city's general fund budget, which pays for police, fire and most other basic services.”
That comes down to how realistic and logical the financing plan is. Cincinnati made assumptions regarding revenues that didn’t materialize, and when that amount didn’t materialize, the city had to put programs on the chopping block. If the city can nail down enough funding and build in a few reasonable assumptions, this should get done. And if the plan doesn’t have the funding nailed down air tight and is based upon a lot of projected revenue, this probably won’t pass.
Get the local government to create 200 million by privatizing parking – also seems doable. But NIMBY issues like the price of parking, control, and ticket enforcement will be tougher than you might thnk.
After they have the money, getting the local government to spend 200 million on the arena – not pouring that money into their pet projects, public safety, or the sewer infrastructure problem. It’s doable … but this is where the rubber meets the road.
4 no votes would kill this. There are already 2, and this from the bee “Several council members who voted to move forward added they would not support a final financing plan that negatively affects the city's general fund budget, which pays for police, fire and most other basic services.”
That comes down to how realistic and logical the financing plan is. Cincinnati made assumptions regarding revenues that didn’t materialize, and when that amount didn’t materialize, the city had to put programs on the chopping block. If the city can nail down enough funding and build in a few reasonable assumptions, this should get done. And if the plan doesn’t have the funding nailed down air tight and is based upon a lot of projected revenue, this probably won’t pass.
Mike0476
Starter
PurpleHaze
All-Star
Plus, several city council members continue to bring up a total lack of regional support - that could be key to getting over the hump. What happened to Mayor Johnson's meeting and appeal to nearby counties and even Sacramento County officials? Apparently nothing. Poor Mayor KJ - he's mere one vote of city council, head cheerleader of effort to get a new arena, just a well intentioned ribbon cutter inside his confined city limits, with limited power of less than 500,000 constituents - surrounded by metropolitan area of over 2 million. A sad political set up to get anything of consequence done in historically do nothing, backward, dysfunctional Sactown. I remain hopeful but clock keeps ticking down to the wire.
It just takes more time to coordinate that than we have time for. They will be doing well to get the parking privatization voted on in February. Then there is all the other moving parts like the NBA/Kings contribution, ICON/Taylor partner AEG contibution. The comments last night from the city asst. mgr is that this is going slowly and not progressing as fast as they would like.
The problem comes from asking for regional support is this isn't a giveaway. The county, Folsom, Roseville, etc aren't going to write a check and accept a thank you. Just like Magic Johnson isn't writing a check without something coming his way.
The city is the entity right now where they stand to make something back either directly or indirectly through growth and development in the railyards. So doing a deal with a regional partner means they have to share back some of this potential revenue. People get lost in semantics of saying what is good for the region and what is very tangible. Right now the city is standing in the best position to reap some tangible benefit for the risk being taken. That's why they have paid some lip service to the region, but the not-so-boldly stated perference is for them to go it alone and thus avoid sharing anything back.
The only way to get the region to tap some donations is for them to consider some options that don't take from their current sources. And given the tight fiscal realities, they are going to tap that for their own use before sending it to the city. They also need to be concerned because their residents are going to be spending their money in the railyards instead of the local businesses.
Wouldn't it be five no votes? There are nine voting members, counting KJ.
Replacing the parking revenue will be tough, but not necessarily non-doable. If they get creative there are probably several ways to go about picking up some of the slack.
First off, I wonder if the existing studies on the parking revenue monetization are taking into account the fact that night parking will be greatly increased (due to the arena) and that currently street meters don't work after 5? I haven't actually seen anything to suggest to me that the city is looking into expanding meter hours, etc., but they really should. Obviously, you'd want to put a limit on meters (1.5 hour, maybe?) to allow parking for restaurant attendees, etc. (that is, not arenagoers) to be at a lower rate, but still you're bringing in extra cash. More cash from the garages, which normally don't get good business at night. And if the current monetization doesn't include that, the city could arrange to get a portion of the "new" night proceeds off the top in their contract, which could fill some of that gap.
There's always the user fee at the arena. We're expecting something like 3M attendees a year, so a $5 per fee would net $15M or so. That's more than plenty to fill the parking gap in the general fund, but I was hoping that money could be used for bond repayment, as there will likely be bonds to cover some of the construction cost.
There hasn't been much talk about rent, but rent there will indeed be, and maybe that's a starting point to try to nail down that $9M or so that the general fund will lose due to giving up parking. We've heard numbers like $16M of revenue sharing for small market teams - if true, suddenly the Maloofs' willingness to put in multiple millions in rent should go up.
So it can be done, we just have to explore every avenue (something I actually don't feel is being done - or at least is being talked about at the City Council meetings). What does worry me is the 30-year lease idea. Assuming that every year has about equal value (relative to inflation) that should knock that "max" value down to $150M, less the $50M that has to go towards debt on the garages. $100M is nice, but not really likely to cut it. Worrisome.
Section 101
All-Star
Their hangup with the current hotel taxes continuing to remodel the theater is misplaced. An ESC will bring in more people to the hotels than the theater therefore generating more of the hotel tax. They should be earmarking the fund for the ESC and having any addition revenue over the current go to the theater.
Last edited:
I'm not against the Community Theater or anything, but I find it really interesting that (from what I saw last night) the vast majority of people who opposed leasing the parking to fund an arena (to the tune of hopefully $200M, with assurances to replace the deficit in the general fund) were strongly in support of the city spending $48M on the theater. Note that there's no vote on that money going to the theater, like they're demanding for the ESC.
Sure, the ESC will cost the city on the order of 4x as much, but it's going to bring way more than 4x the number of people to downtown, serve as an anchor for development, etc. All major benefits that aren't going to come from the theater. The way I figure it, these people see sports as "redneck" and arts as "cultured" so it's OK to spend public money on one but not the other. It's a tough attitude to fight against.
Larry David
Starter
Yes, correct five No votes. So three more out of the seven.
Once again, its been kicked off into whether people think this a good idea. Frankly, that ship has sailed.
My point, and your greatest concern should be, once those 7 voters have 200 million dollars to spend - will they lock it into an arena that could hurt them in an election - or use that money to curry favor with voters by cutting sewer bills by $20, which is how much they are about to go up, by paying for more of the repairs or the police union by hiring more cop.
Once again, its been kicked off into whether people think this a good idea. Frankly, that ship has sailed.
My point, and your greatest concern should be, once those 7 voters have 200 million dollars to spend - will they lock it into an arena that could hurt them in an election - or use that money to curry favor with voters by cutting sewer bills by $20, which is how much they are about to go up, by paying for more of the repairs or the police union by hiring more cop.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Mike and othes, thank you for your leadership. It was an awesome experience. I think only you could have gotten me to actually stand up and speak, Mike, simply because you have worked so very hard at this effort and I know you will continue to do so.
Considering how long Sheedy has been involved in city politics, she continues to shock me with a basic lack of understanding of issues that must have come up in all the things the city commits funding to every month. Certainly this is the biggest project ever in City history, but basic principals are basic principals. She could not understand the net present value of money. It's not like this is the only government deal with private business that has ever come up before the council or the Redevelopment Board they also sit on. If you walk dowtown, the placed is crammed with businesses that have received public assistance, financing or subsidy. From the Hyatt, Sheraton and Embassy Suites Hotels to the Mermaid Bar on K street. (None of them voted on by the general public)
And McCarty didn't seem to understand exactly what a Request for Qualifications are. He kept mixing it up with getting bids (RFP). The everyday person may not understand a lot of the language and a lot of it is very complicated, but RFQ's and RFP's and net present value are everyday business for these council members.
One person got up and said it would only create "temporary" employment. Uh...this is to be a catalyst for further development of hundreds of acres. It will take two to three decaades to build out the rail yards, not to mention re-developing the acres in Natomas. We are talking of years of construction, paying workers, supppliers, truck drivers, etc. Then, how about the businees that are constructed and office space. Nobody will be employed there, maybe for years? Duh!
The city built and owns the Community Center with all city-financing and it enriches private enterprise. Does anybody think those Broadway shows aren't in it to make money? And I want them to renovate the Community Center. I'm glad they assisted with the Crocker Art Museum's addition. It's awesome!
Government subsidies are handed out every day to help businesses start-up, improve their product/service or simply to come and locate in Sacramento.
A couple of points:
1) Last night's vote was a vote to take the relatively inexpensive step of issuing a Request for Proposals. This will not result in any actual bids or any commitment to actually decide to lease out the City parking or even what the money will be used for.
An RFG only asks private parking operators if they would be interested in a lease to privately operate the city's parking assets. Furthermore, it will ask to to submit their qualifications to be successful at operating under such a lease. Things like expericen, size, successes or failures, current financial statements, etc.
So the RFQ gurantees nothing. It only gauges interest and perhaps some rough indicators of what bidders may offer.
A decision to actually request bids from qualified bidders won't even be voted on until February. That would be the RFP, or Request for Proposals under which the city would set some minimum requirements under a lease. That value of the parking will be higher or lower, depending on such things as the term of the lease, the city sets and any restrictions the city wants in the lease, that may affect cash flow/profit to the operator. The city may want some of the revenue after a certain threshhold is reached. Personally, I don't think the operator should be allowed an unrestricted return on investment, but you have to allow enough ROI to induce someone to want to bid in the first place.
If the city decides to proceed to the bidding stage in February, then bidders have to be convinced the city will award a lease to someone. Each bidder will spend a lot of money preparing their proposals. Up to $2 million to complete a proposal with no guarantee of being the selected bidder. They have to believe that someone will get a lease or no one will bid at all.
So February's meeting is the single most critical moment for Sacramento getting a new arena. There will be no time left for any other arena financing plans. Actually, we have no time to go with another plan at this point anyway. It's taken months to get to this point.
However, by that February meeting we should know how much the NBA/Maloofs will put in, how much AEG will contribute, how much, if any, other counties or cities are willing to put up, how much the private business sector is willing to commit to, how they will replace the parking revenue in the general fund, lost under the lease, etc. At that point, the amount the city will get for privatizing the parking, will be a little better narrowed down and will actually be the last piece to move forward with. Essentially then, they would hopefully approve going out to bid on the parking and committing that source of money to the arena construction
[Stands down off the soap box.]
Considering how long Sheedy has been involved in city politics, she continues to shock me with a basic lack of understanding of issues that must have come up in all the things the city commits funding to every month. Certainly this is the biggest project ever in City history, but basic principals are basic principals. She could not understand the net present value of money. It's not like this is the only government deal with private business that has ever come up before the council or the Redevelopment Board they also sit on. If you walk dowtown, the placed is crammed with businesses that have received public assistance, financing or subsidy. From the Hyatt, Sheraton and Embassy Suites Hotels to the Mermaid Bar on K street. (None of them voted on by the general public)
And McCarty didn't seem to understand exactly what a Request for Qualifications are. He kept mixing it up with getting bids (RFP). The everyday person may not understand a lot of the language and a lot of it is very complicated, but RFQ's and RFP's and net present value are everyday business for these council members.
One person got up and said it would only create "temporary" employment. Uh...this is to be a catalyst for further development of hundreds of acres. It will take two to three decaades to build out the rail yards, not to mention re-developing the acres in Natomas. We are talking of years of construction, paying workers, supppliers, truck drivers, etc. Then, how about the businees that are constructed and office space. Nobody will be employed there, maybe for years? Duh!
The city built and owns the Community Center with all city-financing and it enriches private enterprise. Does anybody think those Broadway shows aren't in it to make money? And I want them to renovate the Community Center. I'm glad they assisted with the Crocker Art Museum's addition. It's awesome!
Government subsidies are handed out every day to help businesses start-up, improve their product/service or simply to come and locate in Sacramento.
A couple of points:
1) Last night's vote was a vote to take the relatively inexpensive step of issuing a Request for Proposals. This will not result in any actual bids or any commitment to actually decide to lease out the City parking or even what the money will be used for.
An RFG only asks private parking operators if they would be interested in a lease to privately operate the city's parking assets. Furthermore, it will ask to to submit their qualifications to be successful at operating under such a lease. Things like expericen, size, successes or failures, current financial statements, etc.
So the RFQ gurantees nothing. It only gauges interest and perhaps some rough indicators of what bidders may offer.
A decision to actually request bids from qualified bidders won't even be voted on until February. That would be the RFP, or Request for Proposals under which the city would set some minimum requirements under a lease. That value of the parking will be higher or lower, depending on such things as the term of the lease, the city sets and any restrictions the city wants in the lease, that may affect cash flow/profit to the operator. The city may want some of the revenue after a certain threshhold is reached. Personally, I don't think the operator should be allowed an unrestricted return on investment, but you have to allow enough ROI to induce someone to want to bid in the first place.
If the city decides to proceed to the bidding stage in February, then bidders have to be convinced the city will award a lease to someone. Each bidder will spend a lot of money preparing their proposals. Up to $2 million to complete a proposal with no guarantee of being the selected bidder. They have to believe that someone will get a lease or no one will bid at all.
So February's meeting is the single most critical moment for Sacramento getting a new arena. There will be no time left for any other arena financing plans. Actually, we have no time to go with another plan at this point anyway. It's taken months to get to this point.
However, by that February meeting we should know how much the NBA/Maloofs will put in, how much AEG will contribute, how much, if any, other counties or cities are willing to put up, how much the private business sector is willing to commit to, how they will replace the parking revenue in the general fund, lost under the lease, etc. At that point, the amount the city will get for privatizing the parking, will be a little better narrowed down and will actually be the last piece to move forward with. Essentially then, they would hopefully approve going out to bid on the parking and committing that source of money to the arena construction
[Stands down off the soap box.]
kennadog
Dog On It!
At the February meeting they will have to vote to do the RFP and will have to commit those funds to the arena or enough of the expected parking money to complete the arena. Otherwise, we're done. There won't be enough money to build the arena and no way to come up with that much financing from any other source before the March 1st deadline.
Generally, it's considered that money raised in this way should go for capital improvements. Not for operating expenses or other temporary fixes.
If they decided to spend it on infrastructure in the rail yards or extending the light rail, I wouldn't be happy with no new arena, but I might think those were good uses of the funds or not.
Larry David
Starter
You can see which council members are actively involved with the process and which one's are out to lunch. Not just for this ESC, but for most issues. They have access to the city manager and asst. manager all the time. They get briefed, cc'd on correspondence and probably have meetings they can attend all the time. Some obviously either choose to not stay informed or use the council meeting forum for a little theater to pander to the public. I think Sheedy is probably more of the type to pander. Although some of the things she seems confused about have a very distinct incompetent air about them. Buyer beware if she represents your district. McCarty is the one who sounds like this is his paper route job.
If last night's speaking out against the parking is an example of the informed public, then I pray we don't allow anything ever to go to a vote.
If last night's speaking out against the parking is an example of the informed public, then I pray we don't allow anything ever to go to a vote.
Section 101
All-Star
What you don't think a high speed rail is a good idea?
Larry David
Starter
I think Sheedy is 90% pander. She can't support it because it would cost her a seat. At the same time, she doesn't need to beat it, so why read up? Plus, she would probably love to spend the money the arena would bring in.
So if they get this passed over her objection, she's good to go.
So if they get this passed over her objection, she's good to go.
The lady who had been homeless for three years and was upset that the programs were only seasonal. I guess being homeless doesn't pay as well as she had hoped... She gives homeless people who need real help to get back on their feet a bad name.
It also got real tedious when those who claimed to be "biggest Kings fan you'll see" only to wander off into self agenda land.
It also got real tedious when those who claimed to be "biggest Kings fan you'll see" only to wander off into self agenda land.
A lot of anti-arena folks are clamoring out about cops. But you can't hire cops on one-time money. It just doesn't work that way. They'd just get laid off next year. For new, permanent employees, there needs to be some sort of renewing allocation from the general fund.
Larry David
Starter
I agree with you. I just wouldn't put it past them to throw around some "found" money to help their re-election chances as opposed to taking on a tricky issue that could cost them votes.
It would be nuts, but between pet projects and their own goals, I don't anybody should assume there are 7 or even 5 votes to put the parking money into an arena.
It would be nuts, but between pet projects and their own goals, I don't anybody should assume there are 7 or even 5 votes to put the parking money into an arena.
kennadog
Dog On It!
I figure Sheedy and Darrell Fong are absolute no votes. They have been every step of the way. I'm praying for 5, but 4 will do it. Johnson, Robert Fong and Ashby are yes votes. Ashby will be yes as long as Natomas redeveloment is pushed forward. I think Pannell is leaning yes, depending upon new information at each step. I'm not sure about others.
Remember, the business community is solidly behind the new arena downtown. They even stepped up last night to say the wanted to contribute monetarily. It's going to be really important to many council members to not pee off the business community. Not when what everyone would like to see is jobs, jobs and more jobs and more profit.
Mike0476
Starter
Thank you for volunteering. We have more ideas on the way.
Mike0476
Starter
Anaheim will not wait on NBA Kings
Randy Youngman's latest on the arena issue. Read at your own risk.
http://www.ocregister.com/sports/arena-331565-sacramento-new.html
Randy Youngman's latest on the arena issue. Read at your own risk.
http://www.ocregister.com/sports/arena-331565-sacramento-new.html
Section 101
All-Star
This is the part that will be interesting with AEG. Their net income could be lower if they dont put more money into the ESC.
Brac-o-matic
G-League
Funny, I thought the recent developments have been positive for the arena process...? Did he really think a project like this could be finalized in 7 months?
kennadog
Dog On It!
Seriously....do you ever sleep?
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
That's actually a lot more accurate than his articles earlier this year. I was a little bit discouraged after watching last nights meeting. It seems like it's pretty much sink or swim with this parking plan with no real viable backup plans. That's kind of scary since the terms of the parking plan are still only in the theory stage. What happens if the parking revenue plan comes up short? I'm not trying to be a pessimist here but i honestly had the impression that things were further along than they are. If anyone more knowledgeable about this than myself knows anything that might put my skepticism to rest, please tell!
PurpleHaze
All-Star
At this down to the wire date to beg for crumbs from Sacramento County and other surrounding jurisdictions to help poor city fund a new arena. Good luck with that. What a bunch of worthless politicians in downtown Sacramento. They should have had some kind of firm or not firm commitment for financial support from nearby cities and counties many, many months ago. BTW, Rob Fong was once thought to be a possible candidate for Sac mayor or at least seek reelection to city council. He's doing neither and bailing out - presumably to return to his profession as a worthless lawyer.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4123553/some-on-sacramento-city-council.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4123553/some-on-sacramento-city-council.html
Mike0476
Starter
Seriously....do you ever sleep?
I won't rest until this is over.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
He obviously thinks like a true SoCal clone, where money grows on trees and arenas and stadiums get built by snapping your fingers.
