SAN FRANCISCO -- Those seeking an initial reaction from the San Diego Chargers regarding the release of a finance plan by the citizens' stadium advisory group for a new stadium in that city might have to wait a while.
The Chargers will take a closer look at the proposal before providing in any in-depth remarks on the matter.
“We are grateful to the CSAG members who volunteered their time, and we will now ask our stadium development team -- including our financing, legal and land use experts -- to thoroughly review the CSAG results,” said Mark Fabiani, point person for the team on the stadium issue, in a prepared statement.
The stadium advisory group proposed a finance plan for a $1.1 billion multi-use facility at the Mission Valley site where Qualcomm Stadium currently sits. The Chargers would be charged with committing $300 million to the project, with the NFL committing $200 million and the city and county each contributing $121 million.
The plan also includes $225 million from the sale of 75 acres of city-owned land for ancillary development, $173 million in bondable construction capital from the team’s rent, and a little over $100 million in projected personal seat license sales.
"We are now ready for another first -- beginning formal negotiations with the Chargers," San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer said in a prepared statement. "The County and City of San Diego have, for the first time, assembled an experienced negotiating team that will review the CSAG report as it prepares for talks with the team.
"Earlier today I communicated to Chargers owner Dean Spanos that the City/County team and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith are ready to sit down and negotiate. I'd like to start by June 1. San Diegans deserve a good and fair deal, and I will not accept or support anything less.”
As Fabiani states above, the citizens' stadium advisory group members should be commended for putting so much effort in a thankless job. Each person should have been compensated for their time. Instead, task force members actually were saddled with taking care of some of the expenses to help them competently do their jobs.
That said, here are a couple things that could be sticking points in negotiations:
A clear path to a public vote: Faulconer has said the public will get an opportunity to weigh in on the project. However, it remains to be seen how the city and county’s pursuit of a public vote will affect how much money the government agencies contribute, along with the timing of a public vote. The sale of city property of more than 80 acres would need to be put on a ballot, requiring a majority vote. So the sale of 75 acres avoids that step. But with the county and city both earmarked to contribute $121 million each, will that go out for a public vote?
Using rent to help pay for the project: The city's brokering of the bad deal on Chargers' rent payments in the past has been well-documented. However, using $173 million in rent payments over a 30-year period to help pay for the project is unique. With the city installed as the owner and operator of the facility, it might be wise to earmark that money for maintenance. The city already pays $15 million a year in maintenance costs for Qualcomm Stadium.
Environmental hoops to jump through: Environmental impact reviews can take years in the heavily regulated state of California. And although not a part of the task force's requirement from Faulconer, there’s no clear path on how the stadium project will navigate the necessary environmental hoops needed to get the project entitled and ready to build. And with the Chargers considering a fully entitled stadium project in Carson, time is running out in San Diego.