SLCSpin says deal is done!

[Jose Luis Luviano]

Jordan district unhappy

When all the players move out of Park City and into Draper, won't the Jordan district receive all that income tax money?

[rabble-rabble]

Originally Posted by Jose Luis Luviano

Jordan district unhappy

When all the players move out of Park City and into Draper, won't the Jordan district receive all that income tax money?

Let's not mention all the revenue that events held at the Sandy Stadium (not to mention that entire development) will bring into the community now shall we? :P

For a rather modest investment up front, Sandy is going to be by far the biggest winner in this whole thing (which will in turn greatly help the Jordan District).

[I_Believe_In_Kreis]

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

Let's not mention all the revenue that events held at the Sandy Stadium (not to mention that entire development) will bring into the community now shall we? :P

For a rather modest investment up front, Sandy is going to be by far the biggest winner in this whole thing (which will in turn greatly help the Jordan District).

So does Jordan School District have the power to derail this thing? Or are they going to be forced along at gunpoint? Remember, they passed a resolution last year about not giving up educational dollars for economic development. That leads me to think they will NOT go along willingly.

[rabble-rabble]

Originally Posted by I_Believe_In_Kreis

So does Jordan School District have the power to derail this thing? Or are they going to be forced along at gunpoint? Remember, they passed a resolution last year about not giving up educational dollars for economic development. That leads me to think they will NOT go along willingly.

But doesn't economic development lead to taxes (sales, property, etc.) which lead to more money for education funding? Some of those stubbornly against any stadium funding at all really need to step back, look at the new deal, and if they do, many (but obviously not all) may realize this is really a win-win situation if it goes through.

[Jose Luis Luviano]

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

But doesn't economic development lead to taxes (sales, property, etc.) which lead to more money for education funding? Some of those stubbornly against any stadium funding at all really need to step back, look at the new deal, and if they do, many (but obviously not all) may realize this is really a win-win situation if it goes through.

It certainly does; but the theory is that economic development should be controlled by private firms and people; not the government.

The reality is that this is Utah; so somebody is going to get a subsidy to build on that land.

It might as well be a place that will probably end up hosting high school football and soccer.

[I_Believe_In_Kreis]

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

But doesn't economic development lead to taxes (sales, property, etc.) which lead to more money for education funding? Some of those stubbornly against any stadium funding at all really need to step back, look at the new deal, and if they do, many (but obviously not all) may realize this is really a win-win situation if it goes through.

You sound like you're trying to convince me, but I'm not the one who needs convincing. I agree with what you're saying.......the question is, does the Jordan School District? Obviously I think it would be a good investment for them. But they've shown reluctance to part with their money in the past, and in fact they've drafted a resolution against doing so in the future. So I see no reason why they would go along with Sandy's request this time around, even if you & I know it's a good investment.

So assuming they won't go along willingly, I'll ask my question again: Do they have power to derail the stadium project, or can the city force them to comply?

[prk166]

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

But doesn't economic development lead to taxes (sales, property, etc.) which lead to more money for education funding? Some of those stubbornly against any stadium funding at all really need to step back, look at the new deal, and if they do, many (but obviously not all) may realize this is really a win-win situation if it goes through.

Yes and no. In theory it should. The problem is that a lot of big-box retail gets TIFF money (RDA seems to be the equiv in Utah). So by the time the stores taxes are used to pay off the bonds usd to finance the development of that very store, they're ready to build a new store down the road. Sure, you might get some increase from the strip malls and such but the real money is the main part of the development. I'm not sure but it seems like the stadium itself is even worse than this from that point of view. The problem is that local and county are putting into it what? $30m? $40m? Now what kind of development and around that stadium is goign to occur because of the stadium (keep in mind the existing development) that will be enough for things to come out on the plus side? That's a lot of property tax and sales tax needed to make up for it.

Now I think the stadium can be an overall benefit for Sandy in terms of pushing to further develop itself as the hub of the south side of the metro. But in terms of dollars and ROI in and of itself, especially in and around the stadium, probalby not.

[Stucki]

I'm hoping the school board will go along for concessions about hosting high school games. It would be great for a district school or two to play a home game there each week. I wouldn't mind seeing high school playoff games there either, since they are after the season.

The problem is that RDA funds remove property tax revenues which is the one revenue stream that schools get directly. Long term, the property will pay higher taxes, but in the short term the district loses out.

[I_Believe_In_Kreis]

Originally Posted by Stucki

I'm hoping the school board will go along for concessions about hosting high school games. It would be great for a district school or two to play a home game there each week. I wouldn't mind seeing high school playoff games there either, since they are after the season.

The problem is that RDA funds remove property tax revenues which is the one revenue stream that schools get directly. Long term, the property will pay higher taxes, but in the short term the district loses out.

Thanks Stucki. So, can Sandy force the school district to go along or can they throw a wrench in the works?

[Stucki]

Originally Posted by I_Believe_In_Kreis

Thanks Stucki. So, can Sandy force the school district to go along or can they throw a wrench in the works?

They could throw a wrench in it, but I am hopeful that Supt. Newbold is making public comments to force some concessions in exchange for giving up those tax monies.

One of my colleagues has a relative on the school board, perhaps I can get some information that way.