"If they're serious, then this would pretty much rule out accepting any bids at all, since the parking revenues currently provide $9 million a year for the general fund, which at the moment is supposed to be replaced by elfin magic."

Just letting you know, they are planning on replacing it with the revenue streams from the arena (i.e., naming rights to the arena, ticket surcharge, cell phone towers, etc., that we saw in the summer). Granted, I completely forget the estimates on that stuff plus that in itself this route is a big mess given the primary tenant is going to want a big slice of that (especially without parking revenues) but just saying that was where they were trying to come up with the $9 million annually.

There was a whole lot said that that meeting last night that didn't make the Bee article. One of these is that the Council members seem pretty adamant that this not be a 50 year lease, but a 30 year lease instead.

What effect would that have on the size of the bids?

They also all asked questions about what happened to the regional approach.

I don't think the decision last night was all that critical. Instead of voting to proceed, what they really agreed to do was not kill it yet. The entire FOUR HOURS of debate is available on the City website for your viewing "pleasure."

I watched the entire thing. And lived to tell the tale.

I've read in other threads about this that an arrangment of this nature between the City and parking firms is illegal in CA. How are they going ahead with it? Doesn't the City Council have legal counsel that briefs them on this stuff?

And in reading the tweets of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, they made it sound like its a strong local and nationwide (Sac Kings fans in other states) movement to get this thing built. I live in this town and have many friends here and most of them are interested in more important civic issues.

JJO916, I'm not sure it's illegal. State law seems very clear regarding the meters, though, and this is covered in the City's initial estimate of the value of this. Thus, they give two price ranges, one which includes the value of parking ($170M-$245M) and one which excludes it ($129M-$185M). Any amount they get will require a payback of the current bonds of $52M, so, in effect, wipe off $52M from the two ranges noted above.

In the document the City wrote, they include this note:

Under current California law, parking meter revenue and operations cannot be included
in the monetization. Meter revenues may only be expended on maintenance, safety
and security of the rights-of-way, and parking facilities or garages (including debt). Staff
is exploring the viability of using parking meter revenue to refinance the above
referenced tax-exempt debt on garages with new taxable debt, which is a permissible
use of the funds.

And:

Due to limitations imposed by the State of California's Vehicle Code, it is likely that the
City could not grant an operating lease for parking meter operations nor spend parking
meter net revenue on an ESC. Parking meter revenues may be expended only on
specified purposes generally confined to activities associated with the regulation and
control of traffic and parking on city streets and in off-street public parking facilities.

City staff is exploring the viability of seeking legislative amendments to expand the
allowable uses of parking meter revenue and allow the private operation of the system.

Staff is also exploring the use of meter revenues to refinancing the existing tax exempt
debt on the existing parking garages with new taxable debt.

-----

That last sentence would not be legal, I don't think. Prop 13 circumvention.

I forgot one word in my post above: "Meters."

Thus, they give two price ranges, one which includes the value of parking METERS ($170M-$245M) and one which excludes it ($129M-$185M). Any amount they get will require a payback of the current bonds of $52M, so, in effect, wipe off $52M from the two ranges noted above.

Thanks, Mike.

I was wondering about that as a loophole... can they use the revenue from the existing meters to build a new parking facility and then essentially direct all revenue from the new garage(s) toward the arena? Or does any "follow on" parking revenue have to be used in the same way that the parking meter revenues are?

It looks like that is what they plan to do anyway.

Man, I don't get it... why isn't KJ all over the immigration/green card scam like Ratner...

Well, now the City Council has decided this is a regional effort after all:

www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4123553/some-on-sacramento-city-council.html

The original idea was that on Sept 13, Think Big (which is not a governmental body) would present a "menu" of funding options to the City Council, and the Council would pick and choose items from the list to create a funding plan on Dec 13.

Well, it's December 15, and now one of our Council members has decided it's time to form a regional effort. They needed a plan to vote on and debate two days ago, and the Council is just now realizing they don't even have half the funds identified.

How weak is that?

Meanwhile, the Honda Center in Anaheim is now NBA-ready.

Sorry. There's nothing in here but facts. How far behind is Sacramento? Very.

You're going to love this, Neil. According to the Bee, the Maloofs are now saying that the March 1 deadline isn't really a deadline any more. We can go past that date.

Interview coming out on Sunday.

The Bee decided to not sit on the "flexible deadline" news after all, since it probably would have been scandalous if they hadn't.

www.sacbee.com/2011/12/16/4126500/maloofs-signal-theyre-flexible.html

Also, we're now getting an idea of how much AEG is willing to pay up-front: $50M (that's also in the article). Only $50M seems like a problem to me.

It looks like the funding gaps have become even larger on this project, not smaller. But hey, at least the deadline's flexible now. Let's say we get back to them in... 8 years. Flexible enough?

Last word in the first sentence up there actually should be "had."

D'oh.