[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Just get the freaking thing built!

Pretty crazy to think that the Flames first started the process of securing a new arena in 2007. I mean the first delay was justified as they purchased the Stamps and wanted to reset with a plan involving a new football stadium, too.

But still, we're looking at 17-18 years from the Flames starting the new arena process to opening day.

[Poster]

If it’s such a good deal for taxpayers, why so many “blank spaces”? Why the rush?

Are the Flames paying rent or property taxes? Where is the disclosure? All I see is SPIN and radio hotair.

I want to know the exact number that the Flames are paying for rent.

This seems really stupid to me. Ticket prices up, concession prices up, taxes up.

For what? So taxpayers can help Flames pay Milan Lucic 5.25m?

I was fine with letting Edmonton taxpayers fund the few times a year I want to see a music act.

[Wormius]

This is such a weird about-face for the current council. I mean this whole trickle down economic benefits and intangibles were rightfully being questioned. Now they are all for those intangibles. This seems like we’re still getting the short end of the stick here.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Pretty crazy to think that the Flames first started the process of securing a new arena in 2007. I mean the first delay was justified as they purchased the Stamps and wanted to reset with a plan involving a new football stadium, too.

But still, we're looking at 17-18 years from the Flames starting the new arena process to opening day.

I think the first delay was the flood. That hurt them.

They build a giant concrete water slide down to below ground level next to the river... I have to imagine that was flagged at some point prior to the flood.

I always believed that flood halted plans that were soon to be released.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Poster

If it’s such a good deal for taxpayers, why so many “blank spaces”? Why the rush?

Are the Flames paying rent or property taxes? Where is the disclosure? All I see is SPIN and radio hotair.

I want to know the exact number that the Flames are paying for rent.

This seems really stupid to me. Ticket prices up, concession prices up, taxes up.

For what? So taxpayers can help Flames pay Milan Lucic 5.25m?

I was fine with letting Edmonton taxpayers fund the few times a year I want to see a music act.

They are not paying rent but are responsible for all building maintenance and upgrade costs (the city is on the hook for any needed major structural repairs).

Once the CRL expires in 2047, CSEC will pay the provincial portion of the property taxes on the building (the building will be owned by the city and there won't be any municipal property taxes). If the building opens in 2023 and they have a 35 year lease, they will be paying property taxes for the final 11 of the 35 years.

There will be no tax increases to pay for this deal.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I think the first delay was the flood. That hurt them.

They build a giant concrete water slide down to below ground level next to the river... I have to imagine that was flagged at some point prior to the flood.

I always believed that flood halted plans that were soon to be released.

No, the first delay was still the acquisition of the Stampeders and subsequently abandoning their first proposal to later expand it to include the football stadium. This all predated the flood delay.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Poster

If it’s such a good deal for taxpayers, why so many “blank spaces”? Why the rush?

Are the Flames paying rent or property taxes? Where is the disclosure? All I see is SPIN and radio hotair.

I want to know the exact number that the Flames are paying for rent.

This seems really stupid to me. Ticket prices up, concession prices up, taxes up.

For what? So taxpayers can help Flames pay Milan Lucic 5.25m?

I was fine with letting Edmonton taxpayers fund the few times a year I want to see a music act.

It’s all in there right now if you look for it. The issue is you have to pick your own discount rate for future cash flows.

The flames get 2% of ticket sales plus 1.5 million per year for youth sport plus 250k per year for naming rights for 10 years. The Flames will pay provincial property tax after the CRL expires. As it’s a city owned building no city property taxes are paid. There is an estimated 138 million over 35 years in property taxes from street facing businesses tied into the arena.

So again this comes down to how you feel about if an arena displaced development or creates development

If you say that the 138 million is not new, and the 75 million in youth sport is not real and use a 3% discount rate for the cost of capital to the city then the city is spending about 180 million NPV.

If you believe the 138 million is new money and the 75 million is new money then the deal breaks about even for the city.

But keep in mind if you only consider direct dollars coming back to the city no piece of infrastructure ever pays for itself as it’s used in the providing of services or creating the opportunity to generate tax dollars. So from that standpoint you’d ask if the 180 million outlay could be better spent elsewhere. The answer is usually yes if you place no intangible value on an arena.

The acquisition of Milan Lucic saves the flames 9 million dollars so it is unlikely that any city Arena funds are going to his Salary. In fact you could argue that the acquisition of Milan Lucic is helping pay for the Arena

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wormius

This is such a weird about-face for the current council. I mean this whole trickle down economic benefits and intangibles were rightfully being questioned. Now they are all for those intangibles. This seems like we’re still getting the short end of the stick here.

Certain members of council are starting to look ahead to their legacy I think.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Slava

Certain members of council are starting to look ahead to their legacy I think.

Wooley should spend less time worrying about his legacy and more time understanding the terms of the deal.

[sureLoss]

Where council currently sits:

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/councillo...sion-1.4520771

CTV asked all the members city council on Tuesday if they would support or reject the deal. The following is a breakdown of their responses:

Five members indicated they plan to vote Yes:

Mayor Naheed Nenshi
Sean Chu (Ward 4)
Jeff Davison (Ward 6)
Gian-Carlo Carra (Ward 9)
Shane Keating (Ward 12)


Five members indicated they are undecided on how they will vote:

Joe Magliocca (Ward 2)
Jyoti Gondek (Ward 3)
George Chahal (Ward 5)
Jeromy Farkas (Ward 11)
Peter Demong (Ward 14)


CTV did not receive a response from the following members:

Ward Sutherland (Ward 1)
Druh Farrell (Ward 7)
Evan Woolley (Ward 8)
Ray Jones (Ward 10)
Diane Colley-Urquhart (Ward 13)

[Poster]

there is a 2% ticket tax, thats a tax increase since i am not paying it now for an event at the arena.

i dont want to know about NPV, the elected officials have a duty, a moral obligation, to spell out all the math so that i as a taxpayer dont need to. we arent all financial graduates and by hiding this important information, it simply adds to the nonsense.

however as i said from the start, we are getting a new tax payer funded arena. any invitation for discussion is simply a dog and pony show.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by jayswin

No, the first delay was still the acquisition of the Stampeders and subsequently abandoning their first proposal to later expand it to include the football stadium. This all predated the flood delay.

Yup. I believe that discussion began after the Heritage Classic in 2011 (or probably during the planning of the Heritage Classic when the Flames saw what state McMahon was in).

I went to a STH event in the summer of 2010 (IIRC) where King said he had the drawings for the new building sitting in his desk and it was going to be a couple blocks north of the Saddledome (likely the drawings we've seen recently). Then, a year later, he was talking in vague terms about the new building, and that ultimately led to the CalgaryNext idea.


They were also waiting for the Oilers deal to get completed so that there'd be a comparison to make between the two and if the Oilers were able to get any provincial or federal money to pay for their building, you know the Flames would have been asking for the same.


The flood and the downturn in the economy didn't help things either.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Poster

there is a 2% ticket tax, thats a tax increase since i am not paying it now for an event at the arena.

i dont want to know about NPV, the elected officials have a duty, a moral obligation, to spell out all the math so that i as a taxpayer dont need to. we arent all financial graduates and by hiding this important information, it simply adds to the nonsense.

however as i said from the start, we are getting a new tax payer funded arena. any invitation for discussion is simply a dog and pony show.

[Poster]

If I have to do the math, they are hiding it. Spell it out for us.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Where council currently sits:

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/councillo...sion-1.4520771

Sutherland was on the committee that negotiated the deal, so he should be assumed to be a yes. That would put it at 6 yes votes. Assuming they only need 8 to pass, I think they should be able to get there.

[getbak]

Looks like Gondek is leaning yes: https://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/w...0&ArticleID=17

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Poster

there is a 2% ticket tax, thats a tax increase since i am not paying it now for an event at the arena.

i dont want to know about NPV, the elected officials have a duty, a moral obligation, to spell out all the math so that i as a taxpayer dont need to. we arent all financial graduates and by hiding this important information, it simply adds to the nonsense.

however as i said from the start, we are getting a new tax payer funded arena. any invitation for discussion is simply a dog and pony show.

Originally Posted by Poster

If I have to do the math, they are hiding it. Spell it out for us.

Is anyone disputing this is a tax payer funded arena? That seems perfectly clear. Now, if you are against any public funds, you are entitled to that opinion and you are not alone. But if so, how is the math going to help?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Poster

If I have to do the math, they are hiding it. Spell it out for us.

Once you’ve completed the math how does the NPV compare to all other city funded construction projects? Have you done the calculations for all of those?

[Wormius]

That’s sounds very un-Chu like to vote yes. Did he finally get the pay out he was after? Can’t afford bike lanes, but handing out taxpayer money to for an arena, no problemo .

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Poster

there is a 2% ticket tax, thats a tax increase since i am not paying it now for an event at the arena.

i dont want to know about NPV, the elected officials have a duty, a moral obligation, to spell out all the math so that i as a taxpayer dont need to. we arent all financial graduates and by hiding this important information, it simply adds to the nonsense.

however as i said from the start, we are getting a new tax payer funded arena. any invitation for discussion is simply a dog and pony show.

No the 2% is not a tax.

It comes out of the maximum price people pay for a ticket. It is absolutely a flames payment to the city. Whether you pay that 2% to the flames or the city does not matter.