09-15-2017, 09:26 AM
|
#421
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary - Transplanted Manitoban
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Is the ticket tax money that is paid up front by the city and then the tax is paid back to the city?
|
I believe this was discussed in another thread, but if I have my facts right, they essentialy co-sign a loan from the alberta treasury, and it gets paid back by the tax.
I could be wrong, though
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:27 AM
|
#422
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Nenshi says council unanimously rejected Flames proposal.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:27 AM
|
#423
|
broke the first rule
|
So, if I'm reading that right, the city gets back property taxes. No repayment of the $185, no other rent or lease charges, no interest, and they look after the Saddledome site and get Land? And the Flames can't work with that at all to make a deal?
Guys, I don't think it's the City that's shown no genuine interest in coming up with a deal.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:27 AM
|
#424
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary - Transplanted Manitoban
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev
I guess the only question I would have is what are the details that aren't represented in the City's Info Graphic? It's all fine and good, but is there any fine print? And this city contribution portion, what exactly is Meant by "non-property tax"?
If there are no more conditions or fine print, CSEC should take this deal. Anything more then this by the city will start to offend the sensibilities of the majority of tax payers.
|
I also wonder if CSEC doesn't consider things like 'Demolition' and 'Other Infrastructure' as part of the building process. Not sure how that is determined and added to the bottom line.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:28 AM
|
#425
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Conspiracy theory: The Flames ownership actually likes the deal the city presented, and are bucking against it to sway opinion towards it. Which is probably giving the CSEC too much credit giving how they've botched this process, or maybe I've just spent too much time in the realm of the Trump cult that I'm thinking this is some 97D chess move.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:28 AM
|
#426
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
I think the sticking point has to be the repayment of the City's 1/3.
I gather its not structured as a loan but rather expected to be recouped in Property Taxes, which is much more reasonable.
So then the question is whether King's comments about CSEC paying for all of it is in reference to having to pay Property Taxes.
So it doesnt appear to be structured as a loan, but they have to pay Property Taxes in lieu of their current $1/year deal.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:28 AM
|
#427
|
#1 Goaltender
|
I realize this is a total aside... but I wish they weren't demolishing the Dome.
That place will always be special to me, I'd hoped they would keep using it for Hitmen/Roughnecks or re-purpose it, but realize the operating cost is probably prohibitive.
Still... sad to have that confirmed, makes me want a shiny new luxury box and premium seating dominated stadium even less.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Matty81 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:28 AM
|
#428
|
Franchise Player
|
I appreciate why Nenshi is low balling here but I can see why the flames wouldn't take it.
For 35 years the city will get about 6-8 million per year in property tax which is worth about 200 million. It also includes the Saddledome demolition as the city contribution which is a bit of a stretch. This is an excellent political offer because people don't know that's Ken King hasn't been including the property tax subsidy in any of his numbers. It allows Nenshi to say I offered 1/3,1/3,1/3 just like he wanted. Essentially this offer by the city is very similar to the Seattle deal where they are property tax exempt but don't get any money up front.
I think you might have something if the Stampede pays the Flames for stampede concerts and you cap the property tax paid back at the 135 million direct contribution and add a little more cash to the cities 1/3 and move Saddledome to infrastructure
This is a very shrewd public offer as people don't understand that very few if any Arenas pay full property tax because no owner publicizes it. Glad to see Nenshi at the table here.
Last edited by GGG; 09-15-2017 at 09:31 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:29 AM
|
#429
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary - Transplanted Manitoban
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureloss
nenshi says council unanimously rejected flames proposal.
|
vote them all out!
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:29 AM
|
#430
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Springfield
|
Anyone have a guess on what the property tax bill on an arena would be per year?
__________________
Your real name?
Uh... Lance Uppercut.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:31 AM
|
#431
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO
I also wonder if CSEC doesn't consider things like 'Demolition' and 'Other Infrastructure' as part of the building process. Not sure how that is determined and added to the bottom line.
|
Yeah that had me curious too.
I thought the land was a swap with the Stampede board for the land under the Saddledome. That wouldn't be an expenditure if so.
Yet that gets muddied because of the olympic bid where the city has the Dome and the Corral still in use meaning they can't knock it down because the city needs to use it.
Either way not sure those two costs should be considered part of the city's contribution if the above is correct.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:34 AM
|
#432
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yeah that had me curious too.
I thought the land was a swap with the Stampede board for the land under the Saddledome. That wouldn't be an expenditure if so.
Yet that gets muddied because of the olympic bid where the city has the Dome and the Corral still in use meaning they can't knock it down because the city needs to use it.
Either way not sure those two costs should be considered part of the city's contribution if the above is correct.
|
Really would depend on the current agreement with CSEC on who had to pay it when/if it was no longer in use.
They are also paying for the infrastructure to get people to/from the place which isn't included in their 33%.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:34 AM
|
#433
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanceUppercut
Anyone have a guess on what the property tax bill on an arena would be per year?
|
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.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:35 AM
|
#434
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanceUppercut
Anyone have a guess on what the property tax bill on an arena would be per year?
|
Always depends on location. Giving how prime Vic Park would be, and assuming the building is valued correctly, probably low seven figures a year.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:35 AM
|
#435
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think you might have something if the Stampede pays the Flames for stampede concerts and you cap the property tax paid back at the 135 million direct contribution.
|
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).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:35 AM
|
#436
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
|
How is this even close to 3/3rds Ken King? Good thing I'm not Nenshi. This would have been my message if i were on council.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:37 AM
|
#437
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
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 sports teams. He estimates $5 million/year to be appropriate.
Nenshi thought deal was close before CESC stopped negotiations.
Last edited by sureLoss; 09-15-2017 at 09:50 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:37 AM
|
#438
|
broke the first rule
|
Quote:
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.
|
So, 8 million over 30 years is $240 (not accounting for inflation, any breaks given, etc). So, yeah the city gets its money back. But KK is being disingenuous saying that CSEC is paying for it all, because the Flames also get to keep all the earnings from the arena. Why does CSEC act like they think their fans/stakeholders are idiots?
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:37 AM
|
#439
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by taco.vidal
Your post and analogy in it are bizarre.
Are you Ken King? Youre posts recently seem to be comparable to Ken King's work.
|
Perhaps your reaction could be considered bizarre? New Era is one of the more common sense voices on this forum
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:37 AM
|
#440
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yeah that had me curious too.
I thought the land was a swap with the Stampede board for the land under the Saddledome. That wouldn't be an expenditure if so.
|
City loses the value of the property that it swapped. Definitely still an expenditure.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.
|
|