Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[JBR]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

If the 185 MM contribution from the City is not a loan, I don't see how that deal isn't taken.

I assume the City will recover this amount with property tax.

This proposal doesn't seem to show how much the Flames pay to use the facility.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by JBR

I assume the City will recover this amount with property tax.

This proposal doesn't seem to show how much the Flames pay to use the facility.

Nothing. They own it (if they are paying property tax).

[Locke]

I will credit the City with this though: They at least appear to be proficient with Power Point.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by GGG

About 1.5% of value so about 8 million but a chunk of that is provincial and I'm not sure how they asess the value of the property.

This would be the sticking point then, they want to be property tax exempt and get the 185 million for nothing.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The infographic suggests that the Flames would receive all arena revenue. That presumably includes any facility fees charged for converts, events, etc.

And unless this arena will have a life span > 30 years, it's unlikely that there is any need for a cap (although I agree that is a carrot that the City might reasonably add to the agreement).

It better have a life span of >30 years. Cities need to stop building anything that has a lifespan of less than that. Would anyone buy a house that needs to be demolished in 30 years? Fifty years should be the bare minimum that this building should be in service with at most one major and a couple minor renovations.

[Redlan]

The fact that the cost for demolition of the Saddledome is on here is a joke. If the same rational is used a "New Stadium Demolition" line item can be added on the Flames' Ownership pays graphic. It is almost as if they said "We are 25 million short, what could get us there? How about we put an arbitrary figure for the demolition of the Saddledome, ...cause you know... tenants are always asked to look after this".

[Parallex]

Carrie Tait‏Verified account @CarrieTait 5m5 minutes ago
Replying to @CarrieTait
Flames owners would own the arena, Nenshi says. But open to other ideas like #yyc own then rent it to Flames.

Carrie Tait‏Verified account @CarrieTait 4m4 minutes ago
More
Replying to @CarrieTait
Nenshi tossing out other ideas Calgary would consider. Example: City take an equity stake in the Flames. #yYc #Yyccc

Carrie Tait‏Verified account @CarrieTait 3m3 minutes ago
More
Replying to @CarrieTait
Clarification: The "community" wd take equity stake in Flames. Hi, Riders! #yyc #Yyccc

[GioforPM]

I don't understand what the "non-property tax" contribution means. Just cash?

I'm also curious as to how the Done demolition is a "contribution", unless the Flames' current lease says they are responsible for that. It may be something the City has to do as owner of the building, but unless there's some agreement that the Flames are currently on the hook for it, I don't see how that's a factor at all.

"Land" I get, though I suppose the actual value of that land as it is now is debatable.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Locke

I will credit the City with this though: They at least appear to be proficient with Power Point.

Yeah, their infographic game is tight.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nenshi says the city is open to who owns the arena.

If the Flames own it, there will be property tax.
If the city owns it, the Flames will pay rent.


Nenshi says that who fronts the money for the ticket tax is up for negotiation. In the city's proposal CSEC will front the money


Nenshi also says the property tax is also up for negotation. The municipal act allows for exemptions for professional teams. He estimates $5 million/year to be appropriate.

Nenshi thought deal was close before CESC stopped negotiations.

The City's position is so reasonable. I don't know what more the Flamescan plausibly ask for.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The City's position is so reasonable. I don't know what more the Flamescan plausibly ask for.

I don't think they're going to ask for more, from Nenshi at least. I suspect if he's reelected they probably hash out something close to what the city is offering. What they want is their preferred mayoral candidate to win so he can give them a sweeter deal. But that's probably not happening given that Nenshi is coming out ahead at the end of this week.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The City's position is so reasonable. I don't know what more the Flamescan plausibly ask for.

I mean, as others have pointed out, the saddledome demo charge is kinda bogus. If I was with the CSEC I'd also object to having to front the money for the ticket tax.

[frodo_t_baggins]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I mean, as others have pointed out, the saddledome demo charge is kinda bogus. If I was with the CSEC I'd also object to having to front the money for the ticket tax.

Nenshi said that CSEC refused to move forward unless the Saddledome was demolished and could no longer host concerts

[Incogneto]

The hilarious thing about all of this is that the Flames announcement was all a political play to get Nenshi voted out. Instead, they have strengthened his re-election bid. Tough to see him losing after this charade.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Nenshi said that CSEC refused to move forward unless the Saddledome was demolished and could no longer host concerts

Then it is officially part of the cost of building a new arena. Case closed.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

The hilarious thing about all of this is that the Flames announcement was all a political play to get Nenshi voted out. Instead, they have strengthened his re-election bid. Tough to see him losing after this charade.

I don't know if it will play a big part either way. People on both sides are claiming the public backs them, with no real data to support it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I mean, as others have pointed out, the saddledome demo charge is kinda bogus. If I was with the CSEC I'd also object to having to front the money for the ticket tax.

Fair enough. I can see the objection to the demolition cost. But it certainly appears that those collateral issues are negotiable.

I'd like to see a requirement that CMLC have full responsibility for design and development of the arena. Would significantly reduce the risk of cowboy boot shaped arena.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I mean, as others have pointed out, the saddledome demo charge is kinda bogus. If I was with the CSEC I'd also object to having to front the money for the ticket tax.

Objecting to it is fine, and you're right it's kind of bogus. But stomping their feet and walking away from the table is just childish. Come back with a proposal that removes it and keep the talks moving.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

It better have a life span of >30 years. Cities need to stop building anything that has a lifespan of less than that. Would anyone buy a house that needs to be demolished in 30 years? Fifty years should be the bare minimum that this building should be in service with at most one major and a couple minor renovations.

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines as well. The Saddledome is a bit of an outlier because it cant really be expanded because of its location and it cant really be renovated because of its style.

Hopefully thats something thats being thought about with any potential new arena.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Nenshi said that CSEC refused to move forward unless the Saddledome was demolished and could no longer host concerts

I'm not sure why that would be a sticking point. King said it couldn't host concerts anymore anyway

It still shouldn't be it the city contribution. To me it should be in that outside infrastructure component because at some point the Saddledome goes down. I suspect it is where it is because that 25 million can be converted to cash as a negotiating point.

So the city's final offer is likely 155 cash plus 30 land plus we own you pay us property tax equivalent in rent on the city portion of property tax (until 155 is repaid without interest) and no one pays the provincial portion of the property tax.