Agreed. These financial things are important to the discussion, and the article does not give the most complete picture. However, it gives us a bit more insight into the negotiations that are forthcoming, why there will be at least some negotiating, and why it isn't a completely done deal yet. The points I found interesting were about the city being responsible for maintenance of the structure, and the information about the ticket tax reduction and rent payments ending next year. It is important to note that the reason rent payments are going away is because Peregrine Sports prepaid it as a part of the 2011 remodel. In general, I still think this is likely to happen, but I appreciated some of the "cons" side being described, even if it wasn't that well made of an argument on the article's part.
http://www.kptv.com/story/35396937/...lan-gets-unanimous-approval-from-city-council Unanimous (5-0) approval of the expansion plan in general, but the article states that negotiations are still ongoing about the ticket tax exemption. Edit: Having watched the video on there, it seems like the approval is just that they can negotiate about the financials, not a final approval of the expansion. They also reported that there doesn't seem to be any organized opposition to the expansion at this time, including from the surrounding neighborhood associations.
In my opinion this is more important than the unanimous city council decision. I suspect it would be tough sledding for the Timbers if the neighborhood association was fire up about stopping the expansion, there's a lot of powerful people in that neighborhood.
I guess Friday is Thursday evening. Check it out. 👀 Some new renderings of the proposed expansion for Providence Park. #RCTID pic.twitter.com/eOmx3kzOhB— Portland Timbers (@TimbersFC) May 12, 2017 Link to pictures #1 #2 #3 #4
And get rid of the wood rafters? Heresy! (The roof is now 35 years old, not sure when or if it needs to be replaced. I believe the roof got some help in the 2001 renovation)
The renderings are great and I'm thrilled they've got support thus far, but oy vey that new roof is killing me.
With that type of roof, how do they control rain water. That's kind of dangerous on field level and sidewalk level.
http://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_timbers_present_stadi.html A write-up about the design commission meeting. Not much there, but it gives a vague timeline of a month or two being the next meeting with the commission.
Right. Real tl;dr here: * the Timbers currently pay a ticket tax because they borrowed money for their renovation--they are not borrowing from the government for this one, therefore they don't want to pay ticket tax for it. * the Timbers/Paulson have more than paid off the debt owed for the public money they borrowed; the city has made a straight profit off this deal
Except that none of that is actually true. * The Timbers pay a ticket tax because the city charges a ticket tax to all events in city owned facilities. This includes the NBA team, and all concerts held at that arena. * The Timbers want a ticket tax break (for 10 years only) because they want to recoup some of their expenses for improving a city owned building. * The Timbers did not borrow any public money for the 2011 renovation. The city paid for the renovation to the city owned stadium. The Timbers lent the city money for that renovation, which is why they will not pay rent starting in 2018 and receive a discount to their ticket tax at the same time. Yes, this was all to facilitate bringing the Timbers to MLS, but there is a difference.
I see a distinction, I'm not sure I see a difference. The purpose behind an Amusement Tax (Maryland also has one) is to fund the city's capital cost for the venues (or, this is the purpose when there is a legitimate purpose; some districts have imposed one simply because they could, as Carson, CA did targeting the StubHub center). The issue at the time was exactly the same as for a more conventional loan--will the Amusement Tax generate the revenue needed to pay back the 'let's not call it a loan?' The NBA team also got public money to build the facility, issued in the form of bonds that were paid back by the Amusement Tax revenue--but let's not call that a loan. That would be all fine and good, but the problem then is when you turn around and call non-applying the Amusement Tax for a privately funded enterprise a 'tax break,' which is linguistically true but philosophically bunk.
Which is correct. The city was going to use the spectator fund to pay debt incurred on the entirety of the renovation. As the city would be able to secure a more favorable loan than the Timbers would individually. I also see two payments. $8 million to the city for the renovations with a guarantee that Peregrine Sports would cover all construction cost overruns (I vaguely recall Paulson saying it came out to almost $12 million). AND $11 million in pre-paid rent for years 8-25 on the 25 year lease. I believe the rent started at $750,000 in 2011 and rose up to this year's $950,000. The pre-paid rent amounts to roughly $750,000 per year, which is exactly what each year's rent was in 2011 when the pre-paid rent was delivered.
With that type of a roof and slope towards the field it is going to take an extreme guttering system to avoid there being a waterfall off the front edge in a downpour.
Maybe they could justify the tax break by planting a big carbon-friendly green space right in front of the new stand? They could use reclaimed water from the roof runoff to feed the green space. It would be an eco friendly LEAD worthy solution!
Grass fields definately aren't eco-friendly. The amount of fertilizer, mowing, and water that goes into them...
I'm sure there will be a significant gutter system and water won't just pour onto the sideline. Also, "downpour" is not really a thing in Portland. For 8 months of the year it drizzles, nearly constantly and all day, but nearly never rains hard.
Sure, but I'm not understanding why a gutter system designed to channel all the water that the square footage of that roof will carry to it seems like an engineering challenge difficult to achieve. It's a gutter, just will be a large one.
It isn't too difficult to achieve. It just isn't normal to slope the roof toward the field. That is the whole point.