City
Retention, a maintainable public asset and manageable fiscal exposure.
The current deal
Where the deal
stands.
The framework is adopted. The real bargain is being written.
Where it stands
- City framework
- Adopted August 12Nonbinding
- Next decision
- Definitive agreementsDecember target
- The public test
- Complete, affordable, enforceable
The City adopted Resolution 37750 and an amended nonbinding term sheet on August 12. The County adopted its own conditions on August 6. September 3 Resolution 37751 directs negotiations with AVT over district development. The complete final agreement suite has not been verified in this review.
Sources: Resolution 37750 · August 12 City term sheet · County Resolution 2026-050 · September 3 Resolution 37751
The numbers, in context
Public renovation portion$573MProposed; full budget unresolved
Continuing public supportUp to $288.6MConditional framework ceilings
Initial annual rent$3.17MProposed; commencement matters
Initial annual tax offset$3MProposed; 5% annual growth
Different categories and timelines. How these figures fit together →
The next decision and the actual deadlines
- County conditions adoptedContribution sources, receipts and public conditions.
- City framework adoptedNonbinding term sheet, with rent added.
- AVT negotiations directedDevelopment process, valuation and milestones.
- Binding agreementsConfirm the agenda and allow meaningful document review.
Definitive agreements are being negotiated for December 2026. The September 4 site update reported a December 17 Council vote target; confirm the published Council agenda before relying on that date. The City framework uses a year-end target. Neither is a statutory December signing cliff in SB 1501. SB 5701’s tranche authorizations and actual financing lead time still matter.
Sources: August 12 City term sheet · Enrolled SB 1501 · Enrolled SB 5701
The governments need a consistent offer
County
Reliable repayment, budget protection and enforceable public conditions.
State
A viable financing route and satisfaction of statutory conditions.
The City’s August 12 package assumes franchise-sale Business Income Tax funding that the County’s final resolution excludes. The County also requires arena-related receipts sufficient for its bond payments. A shared initial $3 million tax offset cannot simply be promised in full to every claimant. The combined plan needs a reconciled source-and-distribution schedule before the private obligations are priced.
The City wants retention and a manageable public asset; the County seeks protection of its budget, repayment and community conditions; the State controls a financing route and statutory conditions. These are distinct institutional incentives. A County remedy against the City can move risk within government unless the City obtains matching direct rights against a capable private obligor.
Sources: August 12 City term sheet · County Resolution 2026-050 · City CFO financing memo
What is on paper and what remains
Rent added
An initial $3.17M annual payment is in the proposal. Timing and security still matter.
Funding unresolved
City and County sources and receipt priorities must be reconciled.
Private value to price
New cash, commercial participation and rights need a complete valuation.
Protection to secure
Bind capable entities and preserve the franchise covenant through default.
Rent of $3.17 million a year was added to the proposal, with commencement and escalation conditions. It is a proposed obligation rather than a payment already delivered. Full budget detail, a consistent financing plan, new private cash, commercial participation, claim treatment and enforcement mechanics remain the tests. Read the updated proposal check →
The evidence still needed
- Buyer assumption/reaffirmation and current obligor/lender structure.
- Independent cost plan and a legal/engineering maintenance-claim matrix.
- Integrated financing, revenue priority and downside model.
- Venue/event records, affiliates, naming licenses and prepaid rights.
- Joint Authority powers and the term/default/termination matrix.
- Construction calendars and binding other-tenant/community commitments.
The documents behind the deal
Review history
September 8: Rebuilt the public Register; corrected maintenance valuation, parking, naming, guarantees, takeover, confidentiality and financing descriptions; withdrew unsupported package totals. Read the correction record →
September 3: Council directed AVT development negotiations. August 12: Council adopted the amended nonbinding City package. August 6: County adopted its conditional contribution position.
Sources: September 3 Resolution 37751 · Resolution 37750 · County Resolution 2026-050
How these numbers fit together
$573MProposed public renovation portion: State $365M, City $120M, County $88M. The adopted negotiating documents still need a reconciled funding plan and complete project budget. Proposal verified
Up to $288.6MContinuing contribution ceilings: City $275M plus County $13.6M. Annual limits and actual-receipt conditions matter; these are not unconditional cash commitments. Proposal verified
$861.6M$573M + $288.6M: combined nominal framework ceilings before financing costs. This is neither a present value nor a binding all-in expenditure. Do not add repayment of the same borrowed principal twice. Calculated
$3.17M + $3MProposed initial annual rent and tax-offset payment. Rent begins at the specified post-renovation commencement and escalates by the lesser of CPI-W or 3%; the tax offset grows 5%. Start dates, recipients and credits still matter. These are not the public’s only receipts. Proposal verified
UnvaluedThe maintenance claim, new commercial rights and operating alternatives require legal, engineering and financial valuation. A lifecycle cost estimate is not a damages award; gross venue revenue is not profit.
Verified describes what a source says, not that a proposed obligation is signed or funded. The reconciled ledger and sources →