City unveils Jaguars stadium plan

[Charles Hunter]

I guess my confusion here is why was it even proposed and planned to end the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax early by four years? That seems like just leaving money on the table for no reason.

I think your summary of the sales tax schedule is correct.
My guess is Curry wanted to start the Pension Sales Tax earlier to backfill the unfunded pension plans sooner.

[Ken_FSU]

P.S. I think the financing solution is pretty smart too, right? Effectively filling the four-year gap between the early sunset of the half-cent Better Jax Plan in 2026 and the onset of the half-cent pension tax in 2030 with a half-cent sales tax to pay for the stadium? A pay-go approach vs. debt financing seems like a wise move that taxpayers won't really feel (they're already used to paying the half-center sales tax), and it still leaves the CIP intact to tackle other priorities. Not sure what the tradeoff is in terms of going this way vs. starting to pay down the pension debt immediately in 2026, but from an optics perspective, seems like about as good of a solution as exists.

Good breakdown, Joey!

So, I think my interpretation here was wrong.

The half-cent sales tax does not pay for the stadium, it pays for the projects that will be shifted from the CIP back into the BJP. The CIP would then cover the city's portion of the stadium.

[marcuscnelson]

The city’s website seems to say as much:

If the city follows through with the approved referendum BJP end date of 2030 and returns the projects that were taken out of the BJP and adds similar projects that can be added through City Council approval, it will remove around $600 million from anticipated borrowing and save the taxpayer over $1.5 billion in debt payments and still get all the projects completed according to their schedules.

The relief of this debt burden brings us to the stadium recommendation;

During the next four budget cycles, it is recommended we place into the City's CIP the required funding for our share of the renovation expenses according to the construction schedule and funding requirements matching the construction schedule. The way the CIP works is the City pays the expenses of the CIP projects from various City accounts as the costs occur and at the end of each year the city borrows the amount spent on the projects and reimburses the accounts the funding originally came from. The borrowing at the end of each year is then added to the City's overall debt and paid for in the City's debt service accounts. The goal is always to borrow less than we pay off each year.

I’m curious what “similar projects” they have in mind for City Council to add to BJP. Also seems worth noting here that in theory, the LOGT extension is also helping make this possible because of how it moved some BJP projects to be funded by the gas tax instead. Part of that BJP gap seems to be what can now be made available for the current CIP projects, which would then open up the CIP to be used for the stadium. If it all works out it’s an impressive shuffle to enable covering the public share of this renovation.

[jaxlongtimer]

Money is fungible. No matter how things get shuffled around, in the end, taxpayers are paying $775 million.  Spend it on the stadium and something else doesn't get paid for or paid down.  I am not criticizing the plan, necessarily, just saying keep one's eye on the ball.

I said the same thing about Curry's slight of hand with the pension funding.  He didn't do taxpayers any favors kicking the can down the road.

Continuing the magic analogies , the City can't continue pulling rabbits out of hats at some point unless we increase taxes further via increased property values, higher millage rates and/or more sales taxes and fees.

[fsu813]

Continuing the magic analogies , the City can't continue pulling rabbits out of hats at some point unless we increase taxes further via increased property values, higher millage rates and/or more sales taxes and fees.

Our community has shown its willing to be taxed for improved QOL when good leadership is applied to advocating for it.

Just in the past several years, we've seen gas tax and two DCPS taxes approved. Pension tax, BJP, etc in years prior.

It takes leadership and coalition building.

Would love to see our garbage fee finally addressed...

[thelakelander]

More info on the CBA:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/

[Ken_FSU]

More info on the CBA:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/

Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:



RE: park funding. From my reading, the Jags were willing to contribute $100 million to the CBA. In large part because the city agreed to commit to funding $70 million in riverfront parks, the Jags upped their CBA contribution to $150 million. This feels like a win for Jax, because we were going to theoretically build these parks either way, regardless of the CBA (and for Shipyards West, we have to, per the land swap agreement).

Everyone want to cry special interests when it doesn't benefit their cronies. 

[Jax_Developer]

I want the Jaguars to stay. I want a stadium deal. I want the Eastside to benefit. All that said, we have $70M of unmatched city dollars (on top of the other tens of millions of dollars) going towards just parks stuffed into the deal...

This deal represents a lot of what is wrong with local policymaking. Want a stadium deal only? Fine, don't include $300M+ of "other" spending on top of $70M. The fine prints read that the OUTEAST & Community funds will be paid equally over 30 years. I can 100% guarantee that the $70M unmatched city funds will not be over 30 years, rather in 5 or less. (Probably why the Jags are not matching any funds.)

Where's the real analysis in this deal? Zero analysis around NPV vs. Future Value of Money. All the dollars are the same in this example. How much does the city actually benefit from the extra spending?

The stadium deal itself isn't what will displace the Eastside, it's all the Four Seaons, Parks, Lot J... etc. all coming together that will do it. Why shovel that onto the general taxpayer? Private ventures on public land should be able to cover that concern.

The real win of this deal (from a basic deal summary) are the reworked terms of how the Jags & the COJ will operate the stadium. I like what Donna is doing, I just don't understand the reasoning at play here.

[Jax_Developer]

More info on the CBA:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/

Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:



RE: park funding. From my reading, the Jags were willing to contribute $100 million to the CBA. In large part because the city agreed to commit to funding $70 million in riverfront parks, the Jags upped their CBA contribution to $150 million. This feels like a win for Jax, because we were going to theoretically build these parks either way, regardless of the CBA (and for Shipyards West, we have to, per the land swap agreement).

Everyone want to cry special interests when it doesn't benefit their cronies.

So am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?

[tufsu1]

More info on the CBA:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/

Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:

and just think...Diamond got appointed to the DIA study group - his interest in downtown is clear!

[Ken_FSU]

So am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?

With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership

None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.

If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.

So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.

In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.

[fsu813]

If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.

I believe the possibility of these parks getting bogged down, value engineered, or "Downtown 2 way streets"ed goes way up if they're just another thing to do inside the CIP. If they're part of the stadium deal, there is more weight to fully funding and executing sooner than later. Also, optics wise, spending a ton of tax payer $ on a private entertainment space while the adjacent public spaces suffer is not very palatable. Same with investing in Eastside. The stories would write themselves.

[Joey Mackey]

The Community Benefit Agreement is included in the stadium deal, I believe in part, so the politicians have something to argue about and claim "victory" if the terms change. No one wants to, and no one is, except for maybe a knee-jerk tweet from Diamond, seriously questioning the aspects of the deal concerning the stadium renovation, which of course is the ultimate goal here. But some City Council members also do not want to just appear as if they rolled over, especially to Donna Deegan and her administration. Hell, during the City Council meeting Salem even said that the City Council will consider six proposals (the stadium renovation) all at once, and then consider the seventh proposal, the Community Benefit Agreement separately, indicating to me that the stadium renovation is already approved and the only "fight" remains regarding the Community Benefit Agreement. Deegan's Administration and the Jags will let some of the City Council members "beat their chest" for optics as it concerns the Community Benefit Agreement, but the real deal here is already done in my opinion.

[Jax_Developer]

Someone needs to bring me up to speed. Why not implement an Eastside CRA? Or a special tax district like at one point discussed? $5M in 2045 is going to be virtually meaningless to the goals of the Eastside today. Yeah $150M is a big number, but it's also not really $150M. The Eastside has more resources for it today than virtually any other redlined neighborhood in Jacksonville. A good percentage of it is already bought up.

So am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?

With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership

None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.

If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.

So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.

In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.

The size of & dollar investment into the DT parks (to me) is really at the point of insanity. We have so much existing park space, with so much already in the works within a short drive... do we really need to be funding more park space? I get that I won't see eye to eye with many people on this, but the intense & undivided attention towards implementing active space on our Northbank has been taken to an extreme, barring any type of private development. No residential, almost zero retail... Marina? Nah. They'll build an amphitheater, and won't put in any permanent beverage/concessions. Just roll in some food trucks like every DT park that we have. It's incredibly frustrating to see people support the parks while not living DT & understanding the ecosystem that already exists. We don't need the same thing repeated 4-5 times in different locations. We need something different, we need variety. Everything is so incredibly stale in the future plans, because there is no tax base to support anything eye catching. We're quite literally privately financing 20+ acres of hardscape, with absolutely zero ability to generate income from it. Property tax? Nope, any new deal since like 2015 has a 75% tax abatement. Sales tax? Nope, we have given incentives for that too nor do people actually live & transact near the Northbank. We'll make sure of that too, by limiting private development to lands within close proximity.

[Tacachale]

So am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?

With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership

None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.

If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.

So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.

In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.

Yes, this is correct. The Jags are happy to put money into a CBA and increased the amount of their contribution when the city agreed to put in money. All the projects are things we can or should be doing -- funding for the Eastside is one portion of it, as they'll be the area most impacted by the stadium, but the rest of the money is for completing the Downtown parks (something we need to do stat; pushing it back would be nuts if we can avoid it), as well as millions in countywide projects. It's a win-win.

The Community Benefit Agreement is included in the stadium deal, I believe in part, so the politicians have something to argue about and claim "victory" if the terms change. No one wants to, and no one is, except for maybe a knee-jerk tweet from Diamond, seriously questioning the aspects of the deal concerning the stadium renovation, which of course is the ultimate goal here. But some City Council members also do not want to just appear as if they rolled over, especially to Donna Deegan and her administration. Hell, during the City Council meeting Salem even said that the City Council will consider six proposals (the stadium renovation) all at once, and then consider the seventh proposal, the Community Benefit Agreement separately, indicating to me that the stadium renovation is already approved and the only "fight" remains regarding the Community Benefit Agreement. Deegan's Administration and the Jags will let some of the City Council members "beat their chest" for optics as it concerns the Community Benefit Agreement, but the real deal here is already done in my opinion.

This is probably the last I'll be able to say on this for a while, but the CBA is very much an intrinsic part of this deal, and the city and Jags are 100% united on this. Everything in it is there because it’s a priority. The city's investment is not only what got the Jags to chip in additional CBA money, but it's what's needed for the additional downtown investments everyone wants to see.