'...shift the debate from "How can we pay for an arena?" to "How can we pay for all the stuff we used to be able to afford before we paid for an arena?"'

As a team owner, sounds good to me. Makes it somebody else's problem.

What amazes me is that still no one knows how much the Maloofs are willing or able to throw in to build this arena. I'm going to take a wild guess, though; they'll say they're willing to contribute $2M/year, but then they'll insist on provisions to ensure they'll get back $10M/year -- either through parking revenues, cell phone tower revenues, signage rights, property tax breaks, or some other way.

KJ was hoping for a $300M payday on the arena, but now it looks as though they might have to cover part of the construction costs with a bond sale, which would trigger a public vote. It's apparent that KJ was desperately trying to avoid a public vote.

Sorry, KJ, but it looks like you're close to losing that game.

And by the way, if they held a public vote and that vote won, I'd be fine with it. If that's what the majority wants, well, I disagree with that desire, but am willing to live with the outcome of a legally-required election.

"A report commissioned by the city says a private company could expect to earn $16 million the first year it operates the city�s downtown parking. That figure could increase to $51 million annually by the 30th year of the contract, according to Walker Parking Consultants. The report does not include borrowing costs that a private operator would likely take on to pay the city its upfront cash."

Does anybody out there have a somewhat solid guess as to what type of interest a third party parking operator would be looking at if they were to take out a loan to pay the city the up front money?

John, I have absolutely no idea what the going rate is for a private bond sale, but I gotta figure it'd be pretty high.

The bonds would be unsecured; and they wouldn't be tax-exempt. It's not like the investor would have a solid asset to sell in case the revenues came up short.

The fact that any lease-out of our parking could not include meters really harms this effort -- and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

The more the strings get pulled on this thing, the more the fabric starts to unravel. The Maloofs are just going along for the ride, waiting for this to fall through, so they could try to relocate or get $ for contraction. The City and the lackey press keeps throwing out the "Kansas City Model" because they built an arena without the team so they don't expect the Maloofs to play. But if Sacramento wants to emulate Kansas City, it should try to get some more good BBQ places.

The more the strings get pulled on this thing, the more the fabric starts to unravel. The Maloofs are just going along for the ride, waiting for this to fall through, so they could try to relocate or get $ for contraction. The City and the lackey press keeps throwing out the "Kansas City Model" because they built an arena without the team so they don't expect the Maloofs to play. But if Sacramento wants to emulate Kansas City, it should try to get some more good BBQ places.

The more the strings get pulled on this thing, the more the fabric starts to unravel. The Maloofs are just going along for the ride, waiting for this to fall through, so they could try to relocate or get $ for contraction. The City and the lackey press keeps throwing out the "Kansas City Model" because they built an arena without the team so they don't expect the Maloofs to play. But if Sacramento wants to emulate Kansas City, it should try to get some more good BBQ places.

This is just one poster's opinion, but the funding gap is simply getting larger and larger:

sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=376893&view=&showpdf=1

1) Parking meters are off the table.
2) That leaves $129M-$189M potential valuation.

So we're looking at a funding gap of perhaps $250M, and probably more than that. If the Council is forced to sell bonds to make up the difference, a vote will be virtually unavoidable.

There are also notes in this document about the timing. They expect to put out RFQ's in January, and have bids by March 1. I just don't see how.

It is as I have already stated: The clock has already expired, it's just that few people noticed it.

I'm half-inclined to urge my council member to support this, if only because it's so ridiculously misguided, and I enjoy watching people land on their faces. That's what they're headed for here -- a gigantic face-plant.

This has serious issues written all over it. No bank will loan the $$ to a city like Sacramento....too small market.

Santa Clara got $$ because it is located in a big market with massive # of corporations and affluent fans to pay down the debt really fast.

MikeM is right....the clock has expired on the Kings in Sacramento.

Parking revenue is variable because there is no guarantee who who parks when or where. Bad way to raise $$.

In reality Sacramento has to float bonds and go to a vote which will lose in a landslide. Their general fund would be on the hook and it is game over.

If Samueli's offer is still on the table the Kings will take it come March.....The NBA will not leave Nor Cal a 1-team market to the Warriors.

They will sell the Hornets to Larry Ellison who will move them to San Jose to ensure a 2-team Nor Cal market.....better TV wise.

Everyone in Nor Cal from Fresno out to Eureka will see 2 teams instead of the just one like it is right now.

"Parking revenue is variable because there is no guarantee who who parks when or where. Bad way to raise $$."

Um, wouldn't that be an argument *for* selling off future parking revenue in exchange for a guaranteed lump sum now?

The problem here isn't whether parking revenues are a good way of funding an arena. It's how you replace those revenues once you've handed them over to the Kings.