Board Bill 219 – Adoption of St. Louis Riverfront Stadium Project Financing, Construction and Lease Agreement

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

This week the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen will take up BB219, a measure to adopt the St. Louis Riverfront Stadium Project Financing, Construction and Lease Agreement crafted by the St. Louis Stadium Task Force and the office of the Mayor of the City of St. Louis. The final text of BB219, and the stadium agreement is below.

[more nextSTL St. Louis NFL stadium coverage]

Board Bill 219 – Adoption of St. Louis Riverfront Stadium Project Financing, Construction and Lease Agreeme… by

Board Bill 219: Exhibit A – St. Louis Riverfront Stadium Project Financing, Construction and Lease Agreemen… by

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: informatica()

  • Pingback: dedicated server mieten()

  • Pingback: the best of the best()

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: bet()

  • Pingback: Bolide()

  • Pingback: In Vitro ADME()

  • Pingback: DMPK()

  • Pingback: hasil un sma()

  • One thing i rarely see discussed. If the Rams leave next year, the city will still owe $6M per year on the dome for 6 years through 2021. But with the Rams gone, they will lose out on the $4.2M per year the City says it gets now from Rams games in tax revenue each year. $4.2M x 6 years = $25.2M. That assumes zero inflation. Shouldn’t this be considered?

    • Alex Ihnen

      Maybe. One argument has been that without the Rams the dome and convention center become more profitable. Perhaps that alone makes up the difference. Also, while 6yrs x $6M isn’t cheap, there are zero payments after 2021.

      • John David

        Alex that argument is flawed. Convention business does not get booked overnight. It will take several years to fill the vacated 5 months with events that will cover the $4.2m. That must be counted as part of the opportunity cost of allowing the Rams to leave.

        My back of the envelope tally has the stadium bill passing the BoA 18-10. The final vote total could easily break 20+ for once skeptics see the details and analyze the opportunity costs.

        Im sure no one on the BoA wants to be responsible for helping the NFL leave town again, simultaneously dissing union construction workers and causing a $6m hole in the 2016-2021 city budgets. Put in that perspective, a $1.8m/year loss leader of a stadium that will eventually get an MLS franchise and outdoor concerts on the river and bring 1m-1.5m people downtown on an annual basis looks like a great deal.

        There’s more than enough private investment from the NFL, the team and PSLs that I view the stadium proposal to be no different than any other TIF development the city gets involved with.

        • John R

          Let’s not forget the opportunity costs involved with leveling 90 acres while we’re at it.

          • John David

            What’s your plan to generate $4.2m in tax revenue for the 2016-2021 city budgets to cover the existing bond payments? Any talk about “saving” the 90 acres begins and ends there.

            If you can’t come up with a proposal better than the stadium, what City services would you like to see cut to cover the deficit?

    • John R

      Yes, but it wouldn’t be nearly that bad. First off, we’re deluding ourselves if we think construction actually will begin next year even if the NFL has their balls inflated enough to stop Kroenke… that will only be the start of a long process with Kroenke if he actually is forced to stay. And I wouldn’t doubt those who say he’ll just Dome it for a few years until he figures out what he really wants to do next, which may even be selling the team. All speculation of course.

      The Dome/Convention Center situation has to be examined as part of the overall analysis of the project and that would include projected attendance figures of a freed up Dome as well as how to pay for the $100M the RSA says it needs to upgrade the Dome & CC to keep it competitive. (It’s foolish to count on the county to pick up the tab in penance for sitting out on the stadium funding.)

      Finally, a solid analysis of the short-term impacts also will include projections on how much of the loss of tax $$ from football will be recouped elsewhere through substituted economic activity not just in the Dome but elsewhere in the city… we’d certainly lose some but still retain a significant amount. And we’ll have to look at the projected short-term (and long-term) loss of existing tax $ generated at the stadium site but which would be lost.

      So there’s a lot of factors to look at making for a pretty complex analysis if we’re to be thorough.

      • I don’t buy the Show-Me Institute theory that there will be no loss in tax revenue, since all of us passionate Rams fans who spend too much money on Rams, will just go into the city and spend it on bowling or more movies. After I questioned this, they changed their story to refer to a broad region breaking even instead of the City or State. I believe people travel to where entertainment exists. As ours diminishes, so do people spending on it. And by that theory, Invlewood would not get any new tax revenue either. We can check that 10 years from now to see who was right. Also, they lose one layer of taxpayers when the Rams leave. I don’t see how substitution fixes that. Now, I pay taxes, I give money to players who pay taxes, and they spend it at casinos where those workers pay taxes, say. If all the players leave, and I spend my dollars at the casino directly, the state is just out the $13M taxes per year players layer used to pay.

        • Alex Ihnen

          The larger point is that unless the number of residents, or jobs, or average income changes in St. Louis, spending really doesn’t change. If we add an MLS team does spending go up? When a store closes does spending go down? On the far ends of the extreme, maybe a little, but what we’re really fighting about with any “economic development” outside the variables I started with, is where and who makes money.

          • John R

            I think it is fair to say that a portion of entertainment $$ will be lost from downtown (with some but not all of that recouped elsewhere in the City) but not necessarily that much. And we likely could get a much better return by subsidizing directly office job creation and residential…. things that put feet on the street on a daily basis and actually are what build economic growth.