KCRag Forum

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:08 am They’ve committed to spending a billion dollars on the village portion.

Show me where the Royals have committed to put $1b into this project of THEIR OWN money, not city or state money, THEIR OWN. They seem to be playing shell games, counting one funding source as theirs even though it came from another funding source. We also don’t even have assurances really beyond your “my boys will come through” messaging of when the ancillary development will happen. We’re voting on vapor and ghosts.

UMKCroo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:20 pm During a conversation with Populous, I was told that while the current plan includes closing Oak, they are looking at several different options. I get the feeling they don't see it working without closing Oak though. Interesting news to me however, they claim Oak will remain open to pedestrians, including during games. I pushed them on that for clarification and they confirmed. Was this everyones assumption? Guess I missed that. Makes this way more palatable to me. I still have concerns about streetcar, but really there is just so much capacity. I think traffic ends up a non-issue as well.

I'm confused were they saying closing oak like on gamedays to cars (makes sense) or eliminating Oak being a street ever again (don't like)

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:56 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:08 am They’ve committed to spending a billion dollars on the village portion.

Show me where the Royals have committed to put $1b into this project of THEIR OWN money, not city or state money, THEIR OWN. They seem to be playing shell games, counting one funding source as theirs even though it came from another funding source. We also don’t even have assurances really beyond your “my boys will come through” messaging of when the ancillary development will happen. We’re voting on vapor and ghosts.

I mean they’ve said it dozens of times over the last year. I’m not sure how else they can say “over a billion dollars will be private investment”.

“The $350 [million] is really that base financing. We’ll have asks of the state and the city, and if it’s not specific, they certainly know the range. And then ownership will take the rest of that

With a big ask from the city for funding KC residents in Jax co will be getting hit twice.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:13 pm “The $350 [million] is really that base financing. We’ll have asks of the state and the city, and if it’s not specific, they certainly know the range. And then ownership will take the rest of that

Yeah, I just don’t believe them and there’s no hard document holding them to amount and timeframe. I’ve seen too many developments where the numbers get fudged, “that is an anticipated future phase that we don’t have a timeframe for currently”, or “well, those weren’t real numbers and nobody really thought they would actually happen”. I guarantee you, if the halves were switched and the Royals were putting their “$B towards the stadium and the county, city and state were funding the hotel+…they would balk.

moderne wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:15 pm With a big ask from the city for funding KC residents in Jax co will be getting hit twice.

I mean not really right? First off the tax being voted on isn’t exclusive to Jackson county residents. It’s a sales tax on anything bought in JaCo by anyone. The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:17 pm The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

Does the city currently have the bonding capacity to issue the bonds needed for city funds? If not then another vote by the city is necessary for bond issuance.
If they use TIF or Super TIF bonds will the city have to guarantee payment like the bonds for P&L?
Of course there are other economic incentives available but the city should state what is being discussed about its share of financing.

On another topic. Have the Royals released to the public what is their planned timeline for the promised development and what its contemplated composition would be?
What amount of revenues are projected by this development to benefit the team? If memory is correct the Braves stated they received $38M from their related development. Seriously doubt the Royals would receive anywhere close to that amount, especially at first, since it would appear the development would be in stages.

Right now I gather that the stadium is projected to cost $1B with the cost split between the tax, city, and state with overruns covered by the team. Is that correct?

And BTW have the unions signed off on this whole thing? During the initial construction of TSC there was a long labor strike that delayed construction making the Royals stadium opening after Arrowhead instead of before. And what about the related development? Will contractors have to use union labor and follow county or city minority hiring plans? This may seem minor to some but the unions could throw a monkey wrench into this project and are bases the team needs to cover.

There will be vote needed for the city’s portion is what I’m told from the top people with the city.

dnweava wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:53 pm

UMKCroo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:20 pm During a conversation with Populous, I was told that while the current plan includes closing Oak, they are looking at several different options. I get the feeling they don't see it working without closing Oak though. Interesting news to me however, they claim Oak will remain open to pedestrians, including during games. I pushed them on that for clarification and they confirmed. Was this everyones assumption? Guess I missed that. Makes this way more palatable to me. I still have concerns about streetcar, but really there is just so much capacity. I think traffic ends up a non-issue as well.

Can't make it work = don't want to make it work IMO

Even if it is just pedestrian only on gamedays, I'd be fine with that, but it needs to be open to traffic most days. Plus it's a major emergency vehicle corridor. There is literally a fire station, hospital, and police station all within a block of Oak.

Weird that a major emergency corridor would be one lane going North. You guys are just throwing anything at the wall at this point to see if it’ll stick.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:51 pm There will be vote needed for the city’s portion is what I’m told from the top people with the city.

Considering the Mayor probably signed an NDA and the rest of the Council seems in the dark, we have no reason to believe anything that says "the city" will do anything unless there's a bigger carrot on offer (like eliminating some provisions of the P&L development agreement to entice the East Crossroads location choice).

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:48 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:17 pm The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

On another topic. Have the Royals released to the public what is their planned timeline for the promised development and what its contemplated composition would be?

Yes

I believe it was opening day 2028

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:45 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:48 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:17 pm The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

On another topic. Have the Royals released to the public what is their planned timeline for the promised development and what its contemplated composition would be?

Yes

I believe it was opening day 2028

That may be for the stadium but it is about the development that goes with it.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:51 pm There will be vote needed for the city’s portion is what I’m told from the top people with the city.

So, the Royals have said that if the county tax is extended they will build the stadium, but that’s disingenuous because there’d have to be another city vote. What happens if the city vote fails? The Royals go back on their word? What a clusterfuck! Can we have adults take over now?

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:57 am

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:45 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:48 pm


On another topic. Have the Royals released to the public what is their planned timeline for the promised development and what its contemplated composition would be?

Yes

I believe it was opening day 2028

That may be for the stadium but it is about the development that goes with it.

Ah got it. Not sure. I would imagine some phased approach but not sure what exactly that timeline would be

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:05 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:51 pm There will be vote needed for the city’s portion is what I’m told from the top people with the city.

So, the Royals have said that if the county tax is extended they will build the stadium, but that’s disingenuous because there’d have to be another city vote. What happens if the city vote fails? The Royals go back on their word? What a clusterfuck! Can we have adults take over now?

Not what they’ve said at all. They said they’ll stay in Jackson County if the vote passes. There will be no other public votes required for any other funding mechanisms.

Sorry my previous comment was a typo. Should have said NO VOTE NEEDED.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:17 pm

moderne wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:15 pm With a big ask from the city for funding KC residents in Jax co will be getting hit twice.

I mean not really right? First off the tax being voted on isn’t exclusive to Jackson county residents. It’s a sales tax on anything bought in JaCo by anyone. The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

Then who pays for those bonds?

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:22 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:17 pm

moderne wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:15 pm With a big ask from the city for funding KC residents in Jax co will be getting hit twice.

I mean not really right? First off the tax being voted on isn’t exclusive to Jackson county residents. It’s a sales tax on anything bought in JaCo by anyone. The city will probably issue municipal bonds that shouldn’t be paid for by the tax payers.

Then who pays for those bonds?

To clarify. No new taxes. Ideally revenue and property tax income pays for this and avoids hitting the general fund.

A couple of things I haven’t seen discussed much:

(1) Could this lead to the Power and Light District Bonds getting retired early because of additional revenue in the district?

(2) Could this pay down or into the streetcar TDD to help it pay down its costs?

mourban wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:24 am A couple of things I haven’t seen discussed much:

(1) Could this lead to the Power and Light District Bonds getting retired early because of additional revenue in the district?

(2) Could this pay down or into the streetcar TDD to help it pay down its costs?

On (1), it would certainly be better than an East Village location and potentially second entertainment district that would directly compete with the P&L District. I would have to think yes because there's 80 more events in downtown KC proximal to the district.

^i think it would have to pay off the bonds rather quickly and free up KCMOs obligations on P&L… maybe not the streetcar as I think that raises less revenue.

I would hope that calculus went into the push for this location in the first place