[Elvis]

Lawmaker opposition casts doubt on new Rams stadium in St. Louis

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/st-l ... ubt-082615

JEFFERSON CITY, MO.

Missouri's legislative budget leaders said they oppose spending taxpayer money on a new St. Louis football stadium, casting serious doubts on whether supporters can cobble together enough money for the facility before an approaching NFL vote on whether to relocate the Rams.

House Budget Chairman Tom Flanigan sent a letter Wednesday to Gov. Jay Nixon warning that he will block any effort to put money in the state budget for payments on a new stadium unless the Legislature or voters first approve the additional debt.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer told The Associated Press he doesn't believe there is legislative support for using taxpayer money for a new St. Louis stadium.

Their reluctance further complicates an already fragile plan that requires buy-in from a number of public and private entities to pay for the estimated $998 million stadium.

Nixon, a Democrat, and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority are working to piece together money for a new stadium as a counterproposal to efforts by Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move the team to the Los Angeles area.

Plans include $135 million from the state to help the sports authority make payments on bonds for the stadium. Missouri still is paying $12 million a year for debt service and maintenance at the Edward Jones Dome, which opened as the Rams' home about two decades ago. The plan includes extending bond debt to pay for the new stadium and assumes lawmakers will continue budgeting annual payments.

But Flanigan's letter calls for Nixon first to ask lawmakers for authority for additional debt before requesting that the Legislature set aside more money to pay for a stadium.

Schaefer and Flanigan's opposition is significant. While several legislators have recently promised to filibuster attempts to include payments on bonding for a new stadium in Missouri's budget, Schaefer and Flanigan, both Republicans, have substantial influence in what actually makes it into the state's spending plan for each fiscal year.

Setting aside money for bonding will be challenging without them. On top of that, Republican Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard said he's backing Schaefer and doesn't believe there's enough legislative support for the project.

What legislative resistance means for the future of the project is unclear.

A spokesman for Nixon did not immediately comment on the letter from Flanigan and opposition from Schaefer. A message left with the sports authority seeking comment on it was not immediately returned.

A Rams spokesman declined comment.

[dieterbrock]

"Nixon, a Democrat"

Makes me laugh every time...

EVERY time

[BuiltRamTough]

Honestly I don't think it even matters anymore what goes on in STL and the riverfront stadium.

[Hacksaw]

Grubman agrees.

[bubbaramfan]

They haven't even paid for the first stadium. Are they still counting on Stan and the NFL to finance half of the second once?

[Elvis]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... After.aspx

Lawmaker Who Opposes State Money for St. Louis Stadium Chats with The Morning After

Brendan Marks posted on August 25, 2015 10:27

Missouri House Budget Vice Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob, wrote a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon saying he would "do everything within my power as a legislator" to prevent funding for a new football stadium from being included in any budget bill.

Fitzpatrick joined The Ryan Kelley Morning After on Tuesday to discuss the issue and talk about why he's against funding for a new football stadium.

We typed up some notable excerpts from the interview, which you can listen to in fully by clicking the audio player below:

What's your reasoning for being against a stadium in St. Louis?

"It's more against the way the governor is issuing the debts than it is the stadium. My personal concern with it is we're still paying for one stadium and what the governor's proposing to do is essentially refinance the bonds on the Edward Jones Dome to basically issue new bonds and combine the payment on the Edward Jones Dome and a new stadium. We're building a new mental hospital in Fulton, Mo. And that was a very important project. But the governor didn't go out and start issuing bonds before the legislature had appropriated that service for that purpose."

More on why he's against the stadium:

"To this point, no one from the Rams organization has made an effort to convince the legislature that a new stadium is going to keep them in town. We don't want to end up in a situation Kansas City is in with the Sprint Center. Right now we get some basketball tournaments and some concerts, but it's not exactly meeting what its intended purpose was. If we build a stadium and we have to find an NFL team to come to St. Louis, that's obviously a concern."

What could you do to block funding to a new stadium?

"We have to appropriate the money to service the debt in a budget bill. So every year, those appropriations are the discretion of the legislature. I've basically told the governor I'm going to do my best to ensure the budget we pass will not include debt service on bonds issued for a new stadium if there's not first an affirmative vote of the legislature or the people."

On the notion a new stadium would increase tax revenue and jobs:

"Temporary construction, that would certainly create jobs. But I would argue if we're going to issue hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, Interstate 70 is crumbling. We've got other areas of spending priorities where we could create construction jobs outside of just a stadium. So at that point, it can be made an issue of priority."

Here's the complete segment: (Audio at the link)

[SoCalRam78]

Yeah, flies in the face of the "checking off all boxes, 2nd stadium in 20 years herp di derp yabba dabba doo" that Shane Gray and Bernie M get off on.

[The Ripper]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 83944.html

Stadium hearing to dig into state funding issues
1 hour ago • By David Hunn

JEFFERSON CITY • Legislators bent on blocking state funding for a new St. Louis football stadium are holding a public forum on the issue now.

Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, called the hearing, scheduled for noon Thursday. Schaaf said he hopes to pin down exactly when and how Gov. Jay Nixon will commit the state to pay for the new stadium.

Nixon’s administration said this year that the governor does not need Legislative approval to use state cash to pay a portion of the stadium’s construction.

Schaaf vehemently disagrees, has sued to stop the effort, and recently began gathering legislators to oppose the use of state funding on the project.

Schaaf said he asked Doug Nelson, Nixon’s administration director, to come to the hearing. Schaaf said he also asked leaders of the public Edward Jones Dome authority, which has already spent $7.5 million on stadium planning, to attend.

Nelson agreed, Schaaf said. Attorneys for the Jones Dome declined, noting Schaaf’s suit against the board.

Schaaf said he will also allow time for public comments.

In November, Nixon appointed a two-man stadium task force. In January, the task force revealed plans to build an open-air riverfront football stadium, and, it hoped, keep the Rams in St. Louis.

More recently, state tax credit applications have spelled out Nixon’s plans to fund construction of the now $998 million stadium: with $450 million from the National Football League and the team that plays here, $201 million in bond proceeds from the state and the city of St. Louis, $160 million from the sale of seat licenses and $187 million in tax credits.

Schaaf and other legislators have vowed to block any state budget that contains bond payments on a new stadium, unless Nixon first gets Legislative or public approval.

Schaaf said he wants to learn in this hearing exactly how Nixon plans to make those payments – if they’ll be through a lease with the stadium, as are Jones Dome debt payments, or via some other method.

He’s also interested in the consequences on the state of a legislative filibuster.

“I'm told by staff the Legislature has broken leases before,” he said. Breaking those leases didn’t affect the state’s credit rating, he said.

Schaaf said Thursday’s hearing is a “fact-finding” mission, and will not include a committee vote.

[TSFH Fan]

Grubman has said that the plans got to be attractive to the clubs. I haven't seen any indication that Stan thinks that being a tenant in St. Louis (or anywhere else) is attractive. So yeah, for that reason, alone (there are lots of others) I gotta agree with the feeling that it probably doesn't matter what's going on over there.

That being said, the maneuvering going on in MO is a bit entertaining.

Nixon is tricky -- it must be the name:

Under the current financing agreement, the state pays $12 million per year to the RCSCA for debt and maintenance on the existing dome. . .
To put the legislature in a trick box, Nixon’s plan is for the annual payment to remain $12 million. If he could pull that off, Nixon believes he can force the legislature into a heads-he-wins, tails-taxpayers-lose situation. If the legislature zeroes out the existing payment of $12 million, Nixon will argue that the legislature has a responsibility to pay it. Attorney General Chris Koster has said the state is not legally obligated to appropriate those funds. However, Nixon will argue that zeroing out the existing payment will risk the state’s credit rating and cost more money than to just pay it. Conversely, if the legislature appropriates $12 million for the combined old and new debt, Nixon will claim the legislature has approved the new stadium.

And now we got this noon time "public forum". I'm guessing that the legislature is out of session and most of the members are in their home districts doing whatever. And I'm not sure how many people in the Jeff City area are going to blow their lunch hour on a "public forum" So, I'm guessing there wasn't a big turnout from either politicians or the public. But that really wasn't the goal, was it? The media picked up on it, and reported on it -- i.e., publicity achieved!

One of the politicians was on Roggin today I didn't catch all of it, I guess it'll be on the first hour podcast.

[SoCalRam78]

SK is into real estate development and real estate speculation, so this deal doesn't do it for him. This is still going to cost him close to 500 million, although notice how local folk say it's 250 million, bs, it's close to 500 million because the G4 loan repayment comes from the team in one form or another.

So it's half a billion for a stadium he DOES NOT OWN and in a market that has already established itself as one of the least if not the least lucrative in the NFL. Where are the other revenue streams coming from? Sure, this is a decent deal for a less aggressive owner with smaller stadium ambitions and for a local team with a fierce and loyal fan base (ie Vikings for instance). It doesn't cut it for SK, his vision in LA makes this thing look like small potatoes. He can build one of the best entertainment complexes in the country in a world class city. Cost isn't prohibitive for him because he has the ability to front it, and the returns will be massive over time.

For the same reason, I don't think he's going to want to share this plan with another owner unless it's purely as a tenant landlord scenario. This is his baby.