Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sporting Kansas City' started by SamPierron, Nov 5, 2007.
Bump for David's post.
So who is going to tomorrow's 8:15 meeting?
I'm going to try it from North of the River but parking is always tough.
Just bring $2 in change. There's always street and meter parking around there. Don't try to park in a lot.
$2 Will get you about two hours parking.
Unfortunately, I am stuck in requirements meeting with my client every morning this week (and last and next).
unfortunately, i'm stuck teaching the future of tomorrow, today (and forever).
those able to attend please update those of us who are obligated to be at work.
Just take light rail.
I will be there.
Normally I would have to work, but I have a couple of vacation days I need to take before the end of the year, and what better way to spend my day off than at a city council meeting!
Sorry if this was posted elsewhere. A relatively positive op-ed piece by the Star. It raises the issue of a change in the amount of public financing required by the project.
If Super TIF is 23 years instead of 3 to 5 years that may create a hurdle that I hadn't noticed being discussed and one that has kind of flown under the radar. first I wonder if this is accurate and if so what effect will it have?
Barring issues with work, I will be there. Parking was a pain last time. Sabotage is right, the meters are the best option.
he mentions that it's quite a bit of money, but he doesn't post the percentage of the total project that the money is. That's an important fact that he left out.
Jeff, and everyone else, just a reminder there is a new 12-floor parking garage at 11th & Oak - right across the street from City Hall. They take credit cards too.
See you all tomorrow,
Just so anyone who couldn't go knows, just found out about this:
Is Video On Demand for the council meetings.
Save Bannister guy on right now... don't know how much I missed.
Thanks for the video link
It seems to be onto other business. Any word on what happened earlier in the meeting?
Yea, sorry I didn't find that earlier, would've been nice to hear what everyone had to say. At least we'll now know about it for next time.
I don't know when you started watching/listening (not that I was watching for that long) but probably the most entertaining thing I heard was when the "Save Bannister Mall" guy asked to discuss 'his side' with the council for 30 minutes or so (implying that what was said earlier in the hearing was full of lies... which I took to mean that he maintained that all the mall needed to remove some boards and a big 'reopening' sign for it to be back in the swing of things) and the councilwoman said in a somewhat irratitated voice 'talk to my office'. This just after she indicated that the council was going to meet with Lane4 multiple times over the next week.
Other than that, I heard that a heavy construction(?) representative said they were behind the plan and referred to the fact that labor previously indicated support (AFL-CIO or something). I think I 'came in' on a man from the surrounding neighborhood who expressed his approval to 'do whatever it takes' for the project...
But obviously the folks who were there ought to tell us more... and now, at least, I know what to do for the next meeting.
I just got back. The meeting was 3 hours plus. No vote was taken today. It was shelved for next week, Wednesday I believe, but hopefully David Ficklin will be along to give us the definitive word.
The Funk was not there that I could see.
It started with the developers speaking along with city employees and one of the authors of the fiscal analysis.
The "economically distressed" argument did not seem to be the issue with the council nearly as much as a lack of concrete details on certain things like the prevailing wage of jobs created etc.
Also, two different models gave two different profit forecasts. One was from Arthur Anderson, the other from the city. Much of the discussion was around why the city numbers were different, and not as favorable.
It sounds like they will be in meetings all week clarifying questions etc.
Everyone except 3 usual suspects from the Save the Bannister Mall group spoke in favor of the project. Tolbert, Woodruff, and another gentleman whose name I can't remember. A couple others who supported the project overall, expressed concern about the businesses being too expensive to rent for the existing community. Those were countered by complaints of local property values plummeting as well. One man said his 190,000 appraisal in 2000 was now a 120,000 appraisal since the mall failed.
The room was overflow capacity but only a few Wizards fans wearing gear. I didn't have a jersey or scarf on either, so there could have been more than that. Hopefully a few more in blue can make the next one.
Overall I guess I feel good about the plan, but there are some serious openings that could come under attack from the current TIF-conservative administration. Mainly, the length of the Super-TIF, and the thinner than usual profit margins. Lane4 has used conservative estimates though, so that is a plus. Also, city employees said that if the project comes out better than forecasted, any surplus from the State Super-TIF would, based on past deals, most likely go to the city. But, that will be part of the negotiation.
Thanks to both of you for the recap. Much appreciated.
Was running late. I couldn't find the parking garage. My $28.50 parking ticket for my 30-minute expired meter was a nice way to end the morning. It would've been worth it to keep looking.
Brief report from channel 9. I imagine they will have more on the news tonight, since they mentioned it both last night and this morning.
forgive me if this has already been answered but...
will there still be a meeting next thursday even though no decision was made at this one? i was planning on making it out for that one since I'll be done with finals.
I honestly don't know. It sounded like the Finance Committee would vote for it next Wednesday. My absolute guess would be that they won't make the City Council docket for Thursday 12/13, but be pushed back a week.
Also, forgot to mention. 3 city council members that didn't have to be there came to speak for the plan, along with a Missouri House member from that district. That was encouraging.
That video that went along with that article looks like things are going to be a little rocky in this.
So much for the smooth sailing.
It won't be smooth sailing, but the project does have the surrounding community on our side almost unanimously.
The main point of contention is the two different economic predictions I was talking about. They use two different models to get there, with the city's model not taking into account some additional revenue streams.
Lane4 explained that they were also asked by city officials to even further scale back the estimates and plans to come under better compliance with new TIF policy. The minor changes in predictions become huge changes in the end sum over the 23 years we're talking about. The original analysis was even more favorable.
This is bad.
Overall, I came away from the meeting with a positive feeling.
Future income projections and analysis are very, very, very uncertain. Being an accountant, I fully understand how one change to an interest rate or a change to one other component can drastically change your overall numbers.
I was a bit disappointed that they are still making adjustments to their projections and would have liked to get a vote today; but I am actually impressed that the council decided that they need to do more research and get all of the information before voting. IMO, that was a very good decision rather than voting with incomplete information.
Also, everyone except for the Save Bannister people were very, very supportive. I think the Save Bannister people have a valid points about insuring local businesses and minority ownership businesses have a place in the new project, but I do not think they fully realize or want to admit the amount of blight in that area. They think that if you mow the grass, slap a new coat of paint on everything; then everyone will return. That is not the case. This area may not be blighted by certain definitions, but it is blighted in perception, and perception is reality. People will not return unless something drastic happens in this area.
I think that most of the people realize that, and i think the city council realizes that. Hopefully they will get all of the information straightened out, and next week this will move forward to the next level.
The best thing about this, IMO, is that (unlike the Overland Park project) this is not just about soccer fields and a stadium. This is about a large, comprehensive plan to revitalize an entire section of our city, and I think that need will help this get pushed through.
I parked there and it was $5.25 for four hours.