Biloxi Officials To Vote On Ballpark Contract Donald Sterling Meets With Steve Ballmer Pepsi Center Hosting NHL Exchange Former NFLers Appeal Settlement Approval Long Beach Volleyball Events Growing Lions To Wear Patches Honoring Ford Sr. Tweet Blazers Unveil Sleeved Jersey White Sox Opening Social Media Lounge Bowlsby Bemoans College Sports Lawsuits
SBD/14/Facilities VenuesPrint All
Details of the contract involving the new Pepsi Center and the city of Denver show that the city should gain compared with what it would have earned off McNichols Sports Arena and the smaller Denver Coliseum. The new $132M Pepsi Center will be built and paid for by the Nuggets owner Comsat Video Enterprises and its partner, the Anschutz Corp, while the Nuggets will also manage McNichols and the Coliseum. Based on the agreement, the Nuggets guarantee an annual $2M payment to the city, with an annual 3% inflation adjustment. Under those figures, the city would "come away" with $95M over the 30-year contract, significantly more than the $66M the city "projected it would have earned off McNichols and the Coliseum." Denver City Councilwoman Cathy Reynolds, who helped on the contract, called it a "helluva good deal." As part of the deal, Comsat and Anschutz will pay for all infrastructure improvements, including traffic signals, turn lanes, and environmental cleanup costs at the new arena site (Christopher Lopez, DENVER POST, 4/13).
At the "urging" of San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan, Giants officials met yesterday with new Warriors owner Chris Cohan and President Andy Dolich to discuss a possibile Mission Bay arena site. The Giants are "trying to convince" Cohan that the planned entertainment/sports complex would be the "best" site for a new Warriors arena. The Warriors claim, however, that, if they were to move to San Francisco, their "only choice" is Rincon Hill. Although specific plans of the Mission Bay plan are yet to be made public, the following points were made: Financing would come from revenues raised specifically by the project itself, with the city's percentage of parking and increased property taxes used to repay bonds; no new taxes will be proposed; and, the arena and stadium projects would be developed separately (Glenn Dickey, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 4/14).
Coliseum officials in L.A. "still harbor hopes" that the Raiders will be playing there for the "foreseeable future," according to Kenneth Reich in today's L.A. TIMES. If Raiders Owner Al Davis proceeds with a deal to move to a new stadium at Hollywood Park, "it would be the third time in eight years that [Coliseum] officials have been told the team is on its way elsewhere." Thus, officials hope Davis will agree to play there until a new stadium is completed. If he does, they plan to pursue improvements including luxury suites, more parking and a modernized Exposition Park (the area that surrounds the Coliseum). If Davis' Hollywood plan "does not materialize," Coliseum officials hope he will decide to stay. According to one official, if Davis does returns, it will not be under a rent-free deal, such as the one the team enjoyed last year (L.A. TIMES, 4/14).
In Seattle, the "logjam stalling legislation" to finance a $250M stadium for the Mariners may have been broken this week as the state House took steps closer to passing the Stadium Bill. On Tuesday, a special House stadium committee agreed to remove what was considered one of the "main obstacles" to a new stadium: a proposal to tie financing the stadium to a request for $100M to expand the Washington State Convention Center. It was "unclear," however, whether the House would also remove the stadium issue from a King County request for help in repaying a $65M loan for repairs to the Kingdome (Angelo Bruscas, SEATTLE POST- INTELLIGENCER, 4/12). In addition, a bill to create a public facilities district to finance construction of a new stadium "was working its way through" the state House, but still awaited a vote. The district would have special taxing power independent of King County, increasing the county's sales and use tax by .1%. The tax, however, would still have to be approved by voters. The stadium bill now moves into a joint House-Senate conference committee and must be approved by the Senate before going to the governor, who reportedly supports the proposed project (Angelo Bruscas, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, 4/14).