SBD/June 13, 2014/FacilitiesPrint All
Jaguars President Mark Lamping “expects to know in six months” whether the Jaguars and Owner Shahid Khan will “pursue development of the vacant riverfront Shipyards property near EverBank Field,” according to Karen Brune Mathis of the JACKSONVILLE DAILY RECORD. Should the team proceed, it is “envisioning serving as the master developer for a project to include rental apartments, entertainment, retail, a marina and a park-like setting that includes a multipurpose facility that could be used” by the Jaguars or visiting teams to the TaxSlayer Bowl that “need a practice facility.” Lamping: “If we get involved, we’re going to make sure that it has some Jaguars theming as part of it.” Lamping said that the Jaguars “envisioned green space and park-like settings that would be football-themed and take on the look of a football field, or a covered multipurpose building that could work for an indoor practice facility.” He said that if there was an indoor field “open to the public, it could attract thousands of visitors to watch a practice.” Lamping, Khan and the Jaguars have “spent more than a year looking at the prospects of developing the Shipyards” (JAXDAILYRECORD.com, 6/12).
A new poll shows that 63% of "registered voters surveyed in southeast Wisconsin oppose spending state funds" for building a new Bucks arena, according to Rich Kirchen of the MILWAUKEE BUSINESS JOURNAL. A minority of 34% of voters "in the five-county Miller Park tax region ... support state funding for a Bucks arena." A sales tax "has yet to be proposed but has been discussed as a way to cover part of the cost for a new arena in downtown Milwaukee" for the Bucks, Marquette Univ. men’s basketball and the AHL Admirals. Statewide support was "even less for funding a Bucks arena," with 24% in favor and 73% opposed. The poll was conducted by the Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Urban Initiatives & Research in cooperation with WisBusiness.com and WUWM-FM. The "telephone survey of 569 Wisconsin residents was conducted from June 2 to June 5" (BIZJOURNALS.com, 6/12). In Milwaukee, Don Walker noted most new venues across the country are "paid for through some measure of public tax support." Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has said that the city "can't go it alone in providing tax support for the arena." He has "called for a regional solution." Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce President Timothy Sheehy also is "looking for a regional solution to financing a new arena, and has said some public tax support will be needed." Sheehy said that the poll results "were not surprising given the lack of specifics in the survey questions" (JSONLINE.com, 6/12).
SHARING IS CARING? Walker noted the "shared ownership agreement that was put in place before Miller Park was built stated that ownership percentages would be recalculated periodically to reflect ongoing capital contributions by either the Brewers or the district." When the ballpark opened in March '01, the district owned 70.93% of it and the Brewers owned 29.07%. But because the Brewers have "invested in the park with such projects as a new scoreboard, the Gehl Club and the retail stores, the new ownership percentages have changed." The new figures, "subject to approval by the stadium district board in September, now have the district owning" 68.46% of the ballpark and the Brewers owning 31.54% (JSONLINE.com, 6/11).
UNLV officials “have known from the start” that the height of the university’s now-nixed proposed stadium “violated Federal Aviation Administration standards” due to its proximity to nearby McCarran Int'l Airport, according to Alan Snel of the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL. UNLV Regent and stadium board member Michael Wixom said that the stadium location “concerned him because a sports and entertainment venue on a landlocked campus would restrict future growth." He also expressed that the "costs of building a stadium lower into the ground to limit the height impact on airport flights would grow exponentially the deeper the stadium was built below the ground level.” UNLV Senior VP/Finance & Business Gerry Bomatti said that building at the proposed site would have meant baseball, softball, soccer and tennis facilities “would have to be re-located and re-built at another campus location.” Snel noted an alternate on-campus site for the stadium “would mean Swenson Street would have to be re-aligned, adding more costs to the stadium project.” However, an off-campus option on Tropicana Ave. could “potentially drop the infrastructure costs, but the land would have to be acquired.” The stadium board is “required under law to present a stadium report to the state Legislature by Oct. 1” (LVRJ.com, 6/12).