[TSFH Fan]

The current funding strategy as proposed by the stadium finance team is no touchdown for our taxpayers. Taxes will increase and that's not what was promised to our citizens.

Public commentary by officials has suggested to the taxpayers that the city's funding commitment for the proposed New Stadium would require no new taxes. In fact, the city's funding commitment is supposed to be limited to the current $6 million annual appropriation for the Edward Jones Dome. However, it appears that the city is on the hook for the St. Louis County's $6 million share when they decided to not participate in funding a new stadium. According to the proposed financial plan documents recently shared with my office by the stadium finance team, a funding commitment of at least $12 million is what is before the city for consideration.

An annual appropriation for any amount above the current $6 million would put the city's credit at risk and potentially lead to higher interest costs to issue bonds for much needed citywide public safety and infrastructure improvements.

As comptroller, I am only willing to support the fiscally responsible annual appropriation the city already pays. The funding gap that resulted when the county declined to participate should have been considered the responsibility of all of the remaining parties, not just the city.

In order to protect taxpayers, my office has worked diligently over the past two days to prepare and provide a helpful overview and thoughtful solution on how to close the funding gap without increasing the city's debt and that saves taxpayer dollars. The Stadium finance team would do well to give careful consideration to creating a sports authority through the state utilizing their higher rated bonds. Another option is to identify a new revenue source, such as annual renewal fee for Private Seat licenses.

[The Ripper]

The numbers have never added up and this is the kind of information that the RSA sued to keep private since it would have all been released to the public if there was a vote.

[BuiltRamTough]

Interesting..

[Rams the Legends live on]

The numbers have never added up and this is the kind of information that the RSA sued to keep private since it would have all been released to the public if there was a vote.

Oh yeah for sure. Better Together a organization in StL that's goal is to merge StL city and county into one entity, earlier this year found that open transparency by local government is rather the challenge.

Widespread secrecy in St. Louis County municipal governments, study finds

A new report is criticizing many local governments in the St. Louis area for a lack of transparency.

As documented in the nonprofit organization Better Together's "Transparency Report," the group attempted to obtain basic financial and operational information from dozens of area municipalities that should be publicly accessible under Missouri’s Sunshine Law.

"That’s difficult when you have 115 different governments, but it becomes almost impossible when these governments go out of their way to put up roadblocks to receive publicly available information," said the Better Together's deputy director of community based studies, Marius Johnson-Malon.

Under the Sunshine Law, a city must respond to a public record request "as soon as possible, but in no event later than the end of the third business day following the date the request is received.” If a city requires more time for a "reasonable cause," it must detail why. The law also allows municipalities to charge for copying and labor costs involved in fulfilling the request.

Better Together's study found that some cities responded quickly and at no or low cost. But most cities failed to respond in a timely manner or charged excessive fees.

“Sometimes we were met with different requests for money up to $2,000 to provide the information we were looking for," Johnson-Malone said. "Sometimes people would say it was going to take up to six months, and that is in contrast to some municipalities that got us the information on the same day they received the request and provided it for free.”

Johnson-Malone said compliance varied widely, noting there was "frequent disregard" for fulfilling Sunshine requests. For example, a request to Bellefontaine Neighbors took 85 days to complete, costing $770.90; in contrast, Bel-Ridge fulfilled the request in five days at no cost.

So far, Better Together said it has spent almost $15,909.30 to collect the municipal data. Its study found a St. Louis area citizen would have to spend on average more than $100 to get municipal data through the state’s Sunshine Law.

"It is incredibly difficult to get basic information on how our local governments operate on a day-to-day basis and how they spend taxpayer money," he said. "We, as an organization, have fortunately been able to spend $16,000 and tons of staff time. I can’t imagine what it would be like for the average citizen."

The study also found that several St. Louis County cities had still not fulfilled the Sunshine request after more than 130 days, including: Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Clayton, Country Club Hills, Hazelwood, Hillsdale, Kinloch, Lakeshire, Manchester, Pine Lawn, St. Ann, University City and Vinita Park.

Johnson-Malone said while some cities may simply lack the manpower to comply with the Sunshine Law, others were being "obstructionist." He said lack of transparency threatens the democratic process.

"We’ve heard time and time again, particularly after the events in Ferguson, that one of the answers and one of the things that need to happen is citizens need to be more engaged with what’s going on with their local governments and what we’re finding is that is not an easy task," Johnson-Malone said. "They make it very difficult for those who do want to engage to get the information they need to be informed.”

Better Together's study suggests cities should commit to providing publicly available information on their websites. It cites as model examples a statewide online portal of municipal information in Indianapolis; a central clearinghouse of government information in Louisville; and a document center on Ballwin's city website.

At least one legislator has considered the issue of transparency. State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Cole County, has introduced a bill in the legislature that would require "every county and municipality to establish and operate a government website" with specific information such as meeting agendas, minutes and basic financial documents, available to the public. Johnson-Malone said if passed, the bill would "represent a major step forward in transparency."

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/wid ... tudy-finds

[TSFH Fan]

It's a 5 page release from the Comptroller -- sorry I didn't copy/paste all of it. Please download and review the whole thing. Here's some additional stuff:

· The proposed funding plan seems to assume that the City should bear the full financial burden of the County's decision to not participate in funding the New Stadium. The responsibility for filling the funding gap should be borne by all of the remaining funding parties in the proposed New Stadium project (City, State and football team/NFL).

· The assumptions used to project the City's annual New Stadium tax revenues seem "optimistic" and not based on historical performance of these revenue sources. The proposed funding plan based the aggregate City annual appropriation on these revenue projections.

· To the extent that the revenue projections do not materialize, the City would need to appropriate unrelated general fund money (which would otherwise be directed toward the provision of services) to meet its New Stadium obligations.

· The proposed funding plan would increase the City's annual debt service payments in relation to the Dome/New Stadium from 95% to 166% (from $5 million to $9.785 million in 2020 and from $6 million to $15.975 million in 2051, respectively),

· Moody's Investors Service downgraded the City's general obligation bond credit rating to "A1" from "Aa3" (pursuant to the rating action, City annual appropriation bonds would be rated no higher than "A2"). Moody's cites the City’s high debt burden as a contributing factor in their downgrade action. All things being equal, additional debt will further pressure the credit rating and reduce capital funding flexibility going forward.

[Rams the Legends live on]

It's a 5 page release from the Comptroller -- sorry I didn't copy/paste all of it. Please download and review the whole thing. Here's some additional stuff:

· The proposed funding plan seems to assume that the City should bear the full financial burden of the County's decision to not participate in funding the New Stadium. The responsibility for filling the funding gap should be borne by all of the remaining funding parties in the proposed New Stadium project (City, State and football team/NFL).

· The assumptions used to project the City's annual New Stadium tax revenues seem "optimistic" and not based on historical performance of these revenue sources. The proposed funding plan based the aggregate City annual appropriation on these revenue projections.

· To the extent that the revenue projections do not materialize, the City would need to appropriate unrelated general fund money (which would otherwise be directed toward the provision of services) to meet its New Stadium obligations.

· The proposed funding plan would increase the City's annual debt service payments in relation to the Dome/New Stadium from 95% to 166% (from $5 million to $9.785 million in 2020 and from $6 million to $15.975 million in 2051, respectively),

· Moody's Investors Service downgraded the City's general obligation bond credit rating to "A1" from "Aa3" (pursuant to the rating action, City annual appropriation bonds would be rated no higher than "A2"). Moody's cites the City’s high debt burden as a contributing factor in their downgrade action. All things being equal, additional debt will further pressure the credit rating and reduce capital funding flexibility going forward.

I just posted what looks like the same report on RRF So I will just copy the 2 things I posted there here bro since it is the same vein.

[Rams the Legends live on]

No Touchdown for Taxpayers."

https://twitter.com/stlcomptroller

Office of the Comptroller
City of St. Louis
Proposed New Football Stadium
Funding Strategy Considerations


Background

The Dome:

• The Edward Jones Dome (the "Dome") opened in 1995 and is the City of St. Louis' major league football stadium and home to the St. Louis Rams NFL football team (the "Rams"), among other uses.
• In 1991 the Regional Convention and Sports Authority (the "RSA") issued three series of tax-exempt bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $258.67 million to fund the required land acquisition and construction of the Dome (the "Dome Bonds").
o One series of Dome Bonds was issued for each of the three Sponsors, as defined below.
o The Dome Bonds mature on August 15, 2021 and are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity.
• The Dome Bonds are secured pursuant to a Project Financing, Construction and Operation Agreement (the "Financing Agreement") dated 1991 among the State of Missouri (the "State), St. Louis County (the "County") and the City of St. Louis (the "City", and together with the State and the County, the "Sponsors") and the RSA.
• Pursuant to the Financing Agreement, each of the Sponsors will appropriate annual rental payments to be paid to the RSA to be used to pay debt service on the respective Sponsor's series of Dome Bonds and to provide funds for the preservation of the Dome. The Sponsors’ annual rental payment obligations are:
o State: $12 million (approximately $10 million for debt service through bond maturity and approximately $2 million for preservation through August 15, 2024)
o County: $6 million (approximately $5 million for debt service through bond maturity and approximately $1 million for preservation through August 16, 2024)
o City: $6 million (approximately $5 million for debt service through bond maturity and approximately $1 million for preservation through August 15, 2024)
• Pursuant to the provisions of the lease between the Rams and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (the "CVC"), which maintains, operates and manages the Dome, the RSA and CVC agreed, among other things, to maintain the Dome in condition sufficient to meet certain "First Class" standard requirements at certain dates. The Dome failed to meet the required "First Class" standards at the March 15, 2015 test date thus permitting the Rams to convert the original long-term lease (with a term of March 31, 2025) to an annual term with unilateral renewal rights for the Rams.
• The owner of the Rams has indicated his intention to move the Rams to California.
• The ability of the Rams' owner to move the team to California is subject to approval by the NFL.


The Proposed New Football Stadium

• The State and City wish to continue to have a NFL football team in the City (either the Rams or another NFL football team, subject to NFL determination) in order to (i) retain the jobs and tourism activity and their associated revenues generated by the presence of a NFL football team; (ii) spur redevelopment in the New Stadium project area which will increase the number of jobs and tourism activities in the City thereby increasing tax revenue to the City and State, and (iii) continue to reap the indirect and/or intangible benefits of being a NFL football City.
• A Commission established by the State developed a proposal for a new football stadium in the City to replace the Dome.
• The proposed new $1 billion football stadium (the "New Stadium") would be funded from a variety of sources.
• The original composition of the funding sources for the New Stadium included the NFL, the football team owner, Private Seat License sales, various Tax Credit proceeds, and each of the Sponsors (the State, County and City).
• Public commentary (articles, press conferences, etc.) suggested that the City's funding commitment in relation to the New Stadium would be limited to the $6 million annual appropriation the City currently pays to the RSA pursuant to the Dome Financing Agreement. As initially presented to the public and City officials in relation to the City contribution to the proposed New Stadium, the RSA would issue approximately $95 million tax-exempt and taxable new stadium bonds secured by City rental payments (the "City New Stadium Bonds") which would refund the outstanding City series of Dome Bonds and provide a project fund deposit for the New Stadium project. The City's annually appropriated rental obligation for the New Stadium would not exceed the current $6 million annual amount due to the RSA.
• The County declined to participate in the funding of the New Stadium which resulted in a "gap" in the proposed funding sources.
• The very recently presented funding plan for the proposed New Stadium, in the absence of the County, contemplates a second RSA bond issue of approximately $96 million which would be secured by the direct New Stadium tax revenues (amusement, restaurant, parking, earning and sales taxes) received by the City ("City Game Day Receipts Bonds"). These same revenues also would continue to secure the $6 million annual rental payment due in connection with the proposed City New Stadium Bonds.
o The aggregate annual City contribution to the New Stadium throughout the life of the proposed City New Stadium Bonds and the proposed City Game Day Receipts Bonds upon the opening of the New stadium in 2019 ranges from approximately $9.785 million in 2019 to $15.975 million in 2051 (the final maturity of the proposed City bonds).


Proposed Funding Plan – Funding Considerations:

• The Comptroller has a duty to protect the credit of the City.
• The Comptroller's Office is supportive of the effort to have a NFL football team in the City, but the financing must be fiscally responsible for the city.
• The above referenced proposed funding plan, including and especially the concept of an annual appropriation of City revenues above the current $6 million paid by the City to the RSA, was not developed in collaboration, or discussed, with the Comptroller's Office.
• The proposed funding plan seems to assume that the City should bear the full financial burden of the County's decision to not participate in funding the New Stadium. The responsibility for filling the funding gap should be borne by all of the remaining funding parties in the proposed New Stadium project (City, State and football team/NFL).
• The assumptions used to project the City's annual New Stadium tax revenues seem "optimistic" and not based on historical performance of these revenue sources. The proposed funding plan based the aggregate City annual appropriation on these revenue projections.
• To the extent that the revenue projections do not materialize, the City would need to appropriate unrelated general fund money (which would otherwise be directed toward the provision of services) to meet its New Stadium obligations.
• The proposed funding plan would increase the City's annual debt service payments in relation to the Dome/New Stadium from 95% to 166% (from $5 million to $9.785 million in 2020 and from $6 million to $15.975 million in 2051, respectively),
• Moody's Investors Service downgraded the City's general obligation bond credit rating to "A1" from "Aa3" (pursuant to the rating action, City annual appropriation bonds would be rated no higher than "A2"). Moody's cites the City’s high debt burden as a contributing factor in their downgrade action. All things being equal, additional debt will further pressure the credit rating and reduce capital funding flexibility going forward.
• The City needs to carefully prioritize capital spending, taking into consideration the significant backlog of public safety, infrastructure and other City-wide capital needs. The City's credit rating directly impacts its cost of borrowing and thus, the amount that can be borrowed.


City Funding Participation

• The Comptroller's Office is willing to be supportive of an annual appropriation of up to $6 million to secure the proposed City New Stadium Bonds, assuming the City has a NFL team. This amount is in keeping with the limitation suggested in original representations to the public regarding the funding of the proposed New Stadium.
• The Comptroller's Office, subject to the sub-bullet points below, is supportive of each of the funding partners contributing to the closure of the funding gap caused by the County's absence or otherwise.
o The City's contribution to closing the funding gap is contingent upon the direct New Stadium tax revenues performing at the levels projected in the proposed funding plan and/or the identification of a new revenue source (e.g. annual renewal fee for Private Seat licenses).
o The City's unrelated general fund revenues will not be available for appropriation to secure any additional payments above $6 million per year.
o The City's contribution to closing the funding gap and/or any amount above $6 million annually will not be appropriated by the City, but, for example, structured as a withholding (or other mechanism) of direct New Stadium tax revenues attributable to the City for the purpose of repaying a State financing of the gap closure through the issuance of its own, higher rated bonds or through a State created sports authority.


Other Considerations

• The current focus on the proposed new football stadium offers an excellent opportunity to consider the formation of a Sports District within the City which would help to fund public safety activities around the various sports venues in the City.
• The Comptroller’s Office also is focused on opportunities to improve certain socio-economic indicators (unemployment, poverty levels, educational outcomes, etc.) within the City which were also cited in the Moody’s credit report as a factor in their negative downgrade rating action. The Comptroller must be sensitive to balancing financial commitment to improving socio-economic outcomes against other financial commitments, such as the proposed New Stadium.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... al-2-2.doc

[Rams the Legends live on]

Comptroller: City taxes would rise under stadium financing plan

St. Louis Comptroller Darlene Green said Friday that a recent stadium financing plan would put the city of St. Louis on the hook for $12 million annual payments through 2051, more than the current $6 million paid on America’s Center and Edward Jones Dome debt.
Green said in a statement that the plan was shared recently with her office by the stadium task force.

Green said any appropriation above the current $6 million “would put the city’s credit at risk and potentially lead to higher interest costs to issue bonds for much needed citywide public safety and infrastructure improvements.”

“As comptroller, I am only willing to support the fiscally responsible annual appropriation the city already pays,” Green said. “The funding gap that resulted when the county declined to participate should have been considered the responsibility of all of the remaining parties, not just the city.”

Green offered two suggestions: “The Stadium finance team would do well to give careful consideration to creating a sports authority through the state utilizing their higher rated bonds. Another option is to identify a new revenue source, such as annual renewal fee for Private Seat licenses.”
The stadium task force’s financing plan, as previously outlined, included $135 million from new St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) bond proceeds from the state and $66 million in new RSA bond proceeds from the city of St. Louis, which must be approved by the Board of Aldermen. Alderman Antonio French is threatening a filibuster of stadium funding unless St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay develops with him and other leaders a “comprehensive” plan to reduce crime.

But Green said the plan she recently saw also included a second RSA bond issue of about $96 million, secured by direct stadium tax revenues received by the city.

Green said those revenues also would continue to secure the $6 million annual rental payment due in connection with the first new stadium bonds.
Green said if game-day tax revenue projections do not materialize, “the City would need to appropriate unrelated general fund money (which would otherwise be directed to the provision of services) to meet its New Stadium obligations.”

Peacock said the info the comptroller was looking at was a draft version of financing plans that are no longer on the table. He did not elaborate on what other financing methods are still in play. "At the end of the day we need city leadership to come to the table and get in a room and find an approach to move forward," he said.

Peacock said while the city's portion of the stadium funding will be above what they're paying for the Edward Jones Dome, it will not approach the $12 million mark the comptroller referenced. Peacock expects a bill to be introduced at some point over the next few weeks that would still give the task force enough time to present to league owners in advance of a vote.
The task force’s previously disclosed plan also included $120 million to $130 million from private seat license proceeds, $43 million in Brownfield Tax Credits, and $50 million in Missouri Development Finance Board Tax Credits.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... adium.html

[The Ripper]

Comptroller: City taxes would rise under stadium financing plan
Peacock said the info the comptroller was looking at was a draft version of financing plans that are no longer on the table. He did not elaborate on what other financing methods are still in play. "At the end of the day we need city leadership to come to the table and get in a room and find an approach to move forward," he said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... adium.html

Complete spin. There's now way any of that is true.

[Elvis]

Here's David Hunn's piece:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 7bb5d.html

City comptroller says stadium financing "no touchdown"

By David Hunn

ST. LOUIS • City Comptroller Darlene Green released a statement Friday afternoon questioning the financing of the proposed riverfront football stadium. She called the funding strategy “no touchdown for our taxpayers.”

“Taxes will increase,” she said, “and that’s not what was promised to our citizens.”

But Dave Peacock, co-chairman of Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force, said Green was commenting on an outdated proposal. “Everyone is reacting to old information, one idea that was being considered and is no longer being considered,” Peacock said.

A finished financing package has not been sent to city aldermen nor released publicly. Peacock said the parties are still working on details.

But Green said in the statement that the proposal was presented to her recently. It called for two bond measures to fund the city’s portion of the $1 billion construction project.

The first, as anticipated, would be backed by the $6 million a year that currently pays off debt on the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.

The second would use game-day revenue, such as taxes on food and parking, to back a second bond issue.

“It appears the city is on the hook for the St. Louis County’s $6 million share when they decided to not participate in funding a new stadium,” she said in the statement.

“An annual appropriation for any amount above the current $6 million would put the city’s credit at risk and potentially lead to higher interest costs to issue bonds for much needed citywide public safety and infrastructure improvements,” Green said.

Peacock said the parties have long said they’d use game-day revenue to help build the stadium. And he said the state increased its commitment to the project when St. Louis County bowed out.