Home
Bibliography
Calendar
Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars
DCPSWatch
DCWatch
Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14
Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002
Elections
Election
2004
Election 2006
Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National
Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission
Issues in DC Politics
Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals
Links
Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition
Photos
Search
What Is DCWatch?
themail
archives
|
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Natwar M. Gandhi Chief Financial Officer
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Linda W. Cropp, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia
FROM: Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial
Officer
DATE: OCT 27 2004
SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement:
"Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004"
REFERENCE: Bill 15-1028 as Introduced
Conclusion
Funds are sufficient in the FY 2005 budget to implement
the Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004 as proposed by
the Mayor. There will be risks, however. The character of those risks
will be discussed, but it is difficult to quantify them at this time
because 4 of the 6 necessary agreements among the parties are not yet final and some
of the costs are not as yet determined. This bill provides the basis for
a major new construction project in the District. Bringing that project
to completion on time and within budget will require a strong,
experienced management team.
This Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS) is based on the
information we have as of this time. It examines two central questions:
(1) will the financial structure proposed in this legislation raise
sufficient funds to pay the estimated costs of the project contained in
the agreement between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the District and
(2) can the project be completed within the proposed costs?
The findings are:
- The CFO estimates that the fees and
taxes proposed in this legislation will raise more than enough money to
pay the debt service on $395.2 million, the project costs estimate
contained in the District's agreement with MLB.
- The CFO estimates that bringing
baseball to Washington will cost about $486.2 million, or about $91
million more than the budget in the agreement suggests, primarily
because of the unknowns associated with infrastructure costs outside the
stadium and other unforeseen contingencies. As a result of the increase
in project costs, more money will have to be borrowed and debt service
will increase. Since the ballpark fees must cover about 80% of the debt
service, the funds collected from fees will have to increase from about
$24 million to about $26 million. Under current market conditions, the
District would have to issue bonds in the amount of about $500 million
to raise this amount of money.
- The $500 million bond issuance cap
should be removed to complete the proposed project, Rather than
specifying the bond amount, the legislation should fix the amount that
can be spent on the project and adjust the structure of the new ballpark
fee to raise that amount plus all associated financing costs and
reserves as determined by the CFO. The legislation would then authorize
the District to issue an amount of bonds sufficient to fund all of these
items, as determined by the CFO. Such a change would allow the CFO the
flexibility to issue bonds in the most efficient way possible.
- The Office of Tax and Revenue will have to spend
additional money to administer the new fees and taxes. The costs are
estimated to be about $800,000 in the first year and $500,000 each year
thereafter.
Background
Major League Baseball has agreed in principle to move a
baseball team to Washington provided the District builds a new ballpark
for the team's use. The purpose of the Ballpark Omnibus Financing and
Revenue Act of 2004 is to provide the money to refurbish Robert F.
Kennedy Memorial Stadium (RFK) and to build a new ballpark for baseball.
To achieve this purpose, the proposed bill authorizes the issuance of
bonds in a total amount not to exceed $500 million.
The proposed legislation creates a Ballpark Revenue Fund
within the General Fund as a special nonlapsing account into which
certain fees (called the Ballpark Fee and measured by business gross
receipts), sales taxes collected from activities taking place at the
ballpark and rental receipts for the use of the ballpark paid by the
owners of the baseball team are to be deposited. The Ballpark Revenue
Fund is to be used to support the costs of the development,
construction, or renovation of a stadium that has as its primary purpose
the hosting of professional athletic team events in the District of
Columbia. Deposits in this Fund can be used for no other purposes.
Tax and fee receipts for the Ballpark Revenue Fund will
come from a proposed sales tax of 10 percent on the purchase of tickets
to certain events at the ballpark, a 10 percent tax on sales of tangible
personal property and services at the ballpark and the current 12
percent tax on parking at the ballpark. In addition, rents from the new
ballpark estimated at between $3.5 and $5 million per year will be
placed in the Fund. Finally, a new Ballpark Fee paid by businesses with
gross receipts of more than $3 million will be deposited in the Fund.
The Mayor is granted authority by the proposed legislation to increase
the fee rates for future fiscal years if the amount estimated to be
collected in the current fiscal year is less than $24 million.
Financial Plan Impact
This proposed legislation begins the formal process of
bringing baseball back to Washington. It provides the funding for a
major new construction project that has numerous associated financial
risks as well as benefits. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer can
evaluate some of those risks; others can only be identified and
discussed.
- Revenue Sufficiency -- Will the proposed revenue
sources be sufficient to pay for a new ballpark and to renovate RFK? The
total estimated project construction costs are $395.2 million. This estimate includes renovating RFK
($13 million), buying about 21 acres of land ($65 million), building a
1,100 space car park ($16.5 million), constructing a new ballpark
($279.4 million) and contingencies of $21.3 million. To make the bonds
financing this project attractive to investors, about 80 percent of the
debt service payment must come from a stable revenue source. The new
ballpark fee will, in normal economic conditions, meet that need.
The fees and taxes proposed in this legislation will
allow the District to finance more than $395.2 million or to accelerate
the redemption of the bonds. The estimated debt service on bonds
sufficient to yield net proceeds of $395.2 million is about $27 million
per year. The proposed ballpark fee will yield an estimated $24 million
per year. The remaining $3 million necessary to pay debt service will
come from the sales taxes revenue generated at the ballpark and the
stadium rent.
In the early years if the team does well and fans come to
the games, the sales taxes at the ballpark could yield between $8 and
$11.5 million. The rent on the stadium will be between $3 and $5.5
million. Optimistic estimates of these revenues during the early years
are about $17 million or about $14 million more than is needed for debt
service. Less optimistic estimates still suggest collections of more
than $8 million above required debt service. Current estimates suggest
that revenues will be adequate to cover debt service on bonds generating
$395.2 million for the project even if attendance at the games is 30%
lower than projected.
Although the new ballpark fee will generate funds
sufficient to borrow a net amount of $395.2 million for the project, it will not raise enough
money to pay the debt service on $500 million in bonds, the amount
authorized in section 4(b). Rather than specifying the bond amount in
the legislation, the legislation should fix the amount that can be spent
on the project and adjust the structure of the new ballpark fee to raise
that amount plus all associated financing costs and reserves as
determined by the CFO. The legislation would then authorize the District
to issue an amount of bonds sufficient to fund all of these items, as
determined by the CFO.
The OCFO has no direct experience from which to estimate
the amount of sales tax collections from baseball games. Thus, the new
sales tax revenue estimates lack some confidence. The amount collected
depends on the number of fans that come to the games, and that in turn
depends on the success of the team. The more games the team wins, the
more fans will attend and the more sales tax revenue will flow into the
fund. The District has not had a baseball team in more than three decades and has never
had sales taxes of this magnitude from such a source. The possible error associated with
these estimates is greater than it would be if we had more experience
with these taxes.
Once money goes into the Ballpark Revenue Fund, it can
only be used for baseball and baseball related activities. Under the
proposed legislation, money deposited in the Ballpark Revenue Fund could
not be used for other recreational activities, for example. Thus the
current plan is to use any excess funds to redeem the bonds early.
-
Budget Sufficiency -- Can RFK be renovated, land
purchased and a new ball park constructed for $395.2 million?. It is not
possible to confidently answer this question at this time; however,
reasonable cost estimates of the various project components suggest that
an additional $91 million will be necessary to bring baseball to
Washington. (See Attached Table).
- While the $395.2 million figure
includes $13 million for RFK's renovation, recent estimates from the
Sports and Entertainment Commission (SEC) put the cost of the renovation
closer to $18.5 million. The original estimate assumed a start date of
July. The actual start date will be closer to November. The end date has
not changed. It remains April 2005. As a consequence, money is needed
for overtime and other problems that may result from compression of the
project requiring an additional $5.5 million contingency.
- No money is included in the current
budget for infrastructure around RFK and the new ballpark. We have had
discussions with a number of government agencies regarding the possible
cost of infrastructure improvements that will be required as the result
of the construction of the stadium. These agencies include the D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority, the District Department of Transportation,
the Department of Public Works, and the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transportation Authority (WMATA). We asked these agencies to provide us
with information about infrastructure-related improvements (for example,
road improvements around RFK and the new stadium, movement of water and
sewer lines, and expansion of the Navy Yard Metro Station). We received
an estimate of $15 million from the Department of Transportation for
road improvements. If it is decided that the Navy Yard Metro Station
should be expanded, the costs according to WMATA will be up to $45
million. Since baseball is not the only reason for increasing the size
of the stadium, the District should not have to pay the full expansion
cost. These costs should be shared with the federal government and
regional partners. There may be additional water and sewer costs in
connection with the new stadium. We also reviewed infrastructure costs
of other recently constructed stadiums around the country (see attached
table). Typical infrastructure costs at other stadiums built in the past
15 years are about $50 million, although costs vary a great deal. We
believe that it would be prudent to add about $50 million to the budget
for infrastructure improvements.
- The $395.2 million figure includes
land acquisition costs of $65 million. We will not really know if this
is a good estimate until we try to buy the land.
- The District will be responsible for
any construction cost over-runs that are not the result of changes
required by major league baseball. Such over-runs cannot be estimated at this time. Cost over-runs are not unusual on
large stadium constructions. We reviewed a number of the stadium
construction projects completed in the last 15 years. In some cases cost over-runs have exceeded $100
million. We believe that based on the experience of other cities, there
should be at least $30 million added to the total budget to ensure that
there are sufficient funds available in the event that costs are higher
than expected.
- The $395.2 million does include
$21.3 million for contingencies.
In view of these uncertainties, the OCFO recommends a
budget of about $486.2 million for the project. Such a budget would
require ballpark fees of about $26 million per year.
- Are there problems with the proposed legislation? The
proposed legislation includes provisions that need to be clarified to
properly represent the District's obligations and liabilities. The
following paragraph is an example:
Section 3(G) authorizes funds from the Ballpark Revenue
Fund to be used to cover costs of "any future renovations,
improvements, maintenance or upgrades to Robert F. Kennedy
Stadium...". This section addresses costs beyond the current
renovations needed at RFK Stadium for the temporary home for baseball
and projected costs associated with such future renovations is not known at this time. Is this the
intent of the legislation?
- Will there be additional costs to the Office of Tax
and Revenue (OTR)? Any time a new tax is enacted additional
administrative burdens are placed on OTR. This proposed legislation
introduces a new business fee, increases an old tax in selected areas
and requires special accounting for recording the new revenue. OTR will
face additional administrative costs. The new costs are estimated to be
about $800,000 in the first year and $500,000 each year thereafter. In
the first year OTR will need to develop new tax forms, re-program their
tax administration systems, re-train their returns processing and
customer service staff, develop new audit and collections procedures,
modify accounting procedures to ensure the new tax funds are properly
credited and issue new guidance to the public. For all future years, OTR
will need to answer taxpayer questions, perform audits,
collect the taxes account for all of the taxes collected and maintain
the forms and IT systems.
- What obligations will the other agreements with Major
League Baseball place on the District? The proposed legislation will be
the basis for implementing six agreements that are to be signed between
the District, Major League Baseball, and the Sports and Entertainment
Commission (SEC). These include the:
- Baseball Stadium Agreement (overall agreement for new
stadium and team):
- Major League Baseball Guaranty Agreement;
- RFK License (terms of interim play and RFK
improvements);
- Construction Administration Agreement
(responsibilities relating to development and construction of new
ballpark);
- New Ballpark Lease (30-year lease with five two-year
renewal options); and
- District Government Guaranty Agreement.
This fiscal impact statement does not address the
potential fiscal impact of all these agreements on the District. The RFK
License is scheduled to be completed by January 15, 2005 and the Construction Administration
Agreement and Ballpark Lease by December 31, 2005.
Only the Baseball Stadium Agreement has been drafted and
signed. Among other things, this agreement requires the District to
guarantee timely payment and performance of all financial obligations of
the SEC, and the RFK License, the Lease and the Construction
Administration Agreement. It also requires the SEC and therefore the
District to bear all cost over-runs of the Baseball Stadium (except
changes requested by the Team after execution of the Project Program
Statement) and it exempts construction materials purchased by SEC for
the Stadium Complex and RFK from any DC sales, use or excise tax. (As a
government organization, purchases by the SEC are already tax-exempt.)
It is not feasible at this time to estimate potential
additional costs to the District that may result from these agreements.
Any such costs are not included in this statement.
Proposed Baseball Stadium Budget
|
Baseball Stadium Agreement
|
Office of the CFO Estimate
|
New Ballpark
|
$279.4
|
$279.4
|
Land
|
$65.0
|
$65.01
|
RFK Renovation
|
$13.0
|
$18.52
|
RFK Additional Contingency
|
|
$5.5
|
Parking
|
$16.5
|
$16.5
|
Infrastructure
|
$0.0
|
$50.03
|
Contingency
|
$21.3
|
$51.34
|
Unestimated risk
|
$0.0
|
n/a
|
Conditions contained in agreements not yet drafted
|
$0.0
|
n/a
|
Penalties for not completing stadium by 2008
|
$0.0
|
n/a
|
Total
|
$395.2
|
$486.2
|
Additional factors not reflected in OCFO cost estimate
include:
1. Estimate of land cost does not include relocation and
site remediation costs.
2. The original RFK estimates assumed a summer start
date. Renovations will not begin until November 2004. Much of the
increase in cost is a result of the delayed start coupled with a fixed
completion date of April 2005.
3. A variety of infrastructure needs warrant the $50
million estimate. For example, the District Department of Transportation
estimates that basic road improvements will cost $15 million. If the
Navy Yard metro station needs to be expanded, WMATA estimates the cost
to be up to $45 million. Since baseball is not the only reason for
increasing the size of the station, the District should not have to pay
the full expansion cost. These costs should be shared with the federal
government and regional partners. Water and sewer costs cannot be
estimated at this time. According to WASA the cost of relocation will
likely be in the millions. In addition, relocation work will need to be
coordinated with the stadium construction, which could add delays and
result in unforeseen cost increases.
4. The District is responsible for all cost overruns
which are not the result of changes requested by Major League Baseball.
Overruns and Infrastructure Costs of Proposed or Recently
Built Sports Facilities
Project Name
|
Location
|
Opening Date
|
Reported Project Cost Overrun (SM)
|
Cost of Surrounding Infrastructure Improvements (SM)
|
Total Project Cost (SM)
|
New Fenway Park
|
Boston
|
Future
|
-
|
100.0
|
-
|
Twins Ballpark
|
St. Paul
|
Future
|
- |
50.0
|
- |
Proposed Football
|
San Diego
|
Future
|
- |
21.0
|
- |
Petco Park
|
San Diego
|
2004
|
-
|
61.6
|
449.4
|
G.A. Ballpark
|
Cincinnati
|
2003
|
12.0
|
50.0
|
320.0
|
Gillette Stadium
|
Foxboro
|
2002
|
-
|
70.0
|
395.0
|
Miller Park
|
Milwaukee
|
2001
|
46.0
|
34.2
|
400.0
|
PNC Park
|
Pittsburgh
|
2001
|
0.0
|
65.5
|
216.0
|
Comerica Park
|
Detroit
|
2000
|
43.0
|
- |
-
|
SBC Park
|
San Francisco
|
2000
|
-
|
2.0
|
255.0
|
Bengals Stadium
|
Cincinnati
|
2000
|
45.0-55.3
|
- |
- |
Safeco Field
|
Seattle
|
1999
|
100.0
|
- |
- |
Browns Stadium
|
Cleveland
|
1999
|
31.4-41.8
|
- |
- |
Philips Arena
|
Atlanta
|
1999
|
- |
82.0
|
214.0
|
Bank One Ballpark
|
Phoenix
|
1998
|
110.0
|
- |
- |
Ravens Stadium
|
Baltimore
|
1998
|
20.0
|
- |
- |
MCI Center
|
Washington, DC
|
1997
|
- |
20.0
|
260.0
|
Ameriquest Field
|
Arlington, TX
|
1994
|
40.0
|
- |
- |
Savvis Center
|
St. Louis
|
1994
|
-
|
35.0
|
160.0
|
Camden Yards
|
Baltimore
|
1992
|
23.0
|
2.5
|
110.0
|
1 "Infrastructure Costs of Proposed or Recently
Built Sports Facilities", OCFO/ORA internal document
2 Memorandum of Understanding, Attachment A-1: Ballpark
Project Area, Infrastructure Expense Summary
3 Phone conversation with Eric Stuckey, Asst. Count
Administrator for Administrative Services, Hamilton County, October 22,
2004 4 Review of Milwaukee Brewers Stadium Costs; 2001-2002 Joint
Legislative Audit Committee, May 2002
5 Phone conversation with Erin Andrew, Development
Coordinator, Sports and Exhibition Authority, October 21, 2004; North
Shore Infrastructure Budget 6 HOK Memorandum dated October 25, 2004
7 Phone conversation with Amy Neches, Project Manager,
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, October 21, 2004
8 Wisniewski, Mary. "Suspicious in Cincinnati
Stadium Cost Overruns Raise Public Doubts." The Bond Buyer,
September 6, 2000. Radel, Cliff. "Forward, march." The
Cincinnati Enquirer, November 14, 2001.
9 Thiel, Art. "Success should be measured on field,
not bank statement." The Seattle Post Intelligencer, September 20,
2003 - 10 "More football: stadium cost overruns alleged."
Akron Beacon Journal, January 23, 2000
11 "Diamondbacks making moves to win now." St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, November 22, 1998 -
12 Morgan, Jon. "Stadium authority to take on more
debt; $4.6 million in bonds puts agency back at limit." The
Baltimore Sun, November 26, 1997 13 Nolan, Martin F. "Life will go
on for Boston fans." The Boston Globe, November 21, 1998
14 HKS, Inc Email to John Ross dated October 26, 2004
15 Apperson, Jay. "Orioles claim disparity is $50M:
O's witness details Ravens' advantage in stadium deals; Stadiums."
The Baltimore Sun, December 6, 2000
|