TOTAL ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Transcription

1

2 TOTAL ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Buzzard Point Stadium $286.7 MM Land Acquisition, Remediation & Horizontal Development $136.0 MM 47% Vertical Stadium Development $150.7 MM 53% 1

3 MLS STADIUM DEVELOPMENT COST COMPARISON ($ MM) Historical Cost 2017 Dollars Adjusted to D.C. Market D.C. United Red Bull New York Colorado Rapids Sporting KC Philadelphia Union FC Dallas Real Salt Lake Houston Dynamo Chicago Fire San Jose Earthquakes Los Angeles Galaxy Orlando City SC * Toronto FC * Montreal Impact Portland Timbers Columbus Crew $286.7 $245.0 $182.5 $167.5 $122.1 $110.0 $110.0 $101.1 $98.0 $97.0 $95.0 $84.0 $72.8 $40.0 $37.0 $31.0 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 Development Cost Average Stadium Project Cost $106 MM Average Comparable Stadium Project Cost $132 # D.C. United Red Bull New York Colorado Rapids Sporting KC FC Dallas Los Angeles Galaxy Real Salt Lake Houston Dynamo Philadelphia Union Chicago Fire Orlando City SC San Jose Earthquakes Toronto FC Columbus Crew Portland Timbers Montreal Impact $286.7 $248.2 $231.8 $185.0 $182.6 $138.2 $138.1 $129.4 $121.9 $113.9 $94.7 $84.8 $58.0 $55.2 $42.0 $36.9 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 Development Cost Average Stadium Project Cost $124 MM Average Comparable Stadium Project Cost $158 # * Canadian dollars # Average excludes Columbus/San Jose/Toronto (steel construction) and Montreal/Portland (renovations). 2

4 FUNDING SOURCES Buzzard Point Stadium Total Development Costs $286.7 MM District Capital Budget $59.7 MM 20.8% Team Land Contribution $2.5 MM 0.9% Akridge Land Contribution $2.4 MM 0.8% Public Sector Participation 46% Private Sector Participation 54% District Land Exchange Proceeds $71.4 MM 24.9% Team Debt Contribution $60 MM 20.9% Team Cash Contribution $90.7 M 31.6% 3

5 PUBLIC- PRIVATE FUNDING COMPARISON MLS Soccer- Specific Stadiums Sporting KC Colorado Rapids Toronto FC Philadelphia Union Montreal Impact Chicago Fire Orlando City SC FC Dallas D.C. United - $150 MM cap D.C. United - $131 MM est. Real Salt Lake Houston Dynamo Red Bull New York Portland Timbers Columbus Crew LA Galaxy San Jose Earthquakes 88% 82% 75% 60% 58% 56% 52% 50% 49% 46% 41% 40% 35% 32% 100% 100% 100% 12% 18% 25% 40% 43% 44% 48% 50% 51% 54% 59% 60% 65% 68% Higher Public Participation Percentage Lower Public Participation Percentage League Average: Public Private 45% 55% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Public Private 4

6 COMPARISON OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS ($MM Dollars) Public Sector Private Sector Colorado Rapids Sporting KC D.C. United Red Bull New York Philadelphia Union FC Dallas Chicago Fire * Toronto FC Real Salt Lake Houston Dynamo Orlando City SC * Montreal Impact Portland Timbers Columbus Crew LA Galaxy San Jose Earthquakes $131.1 $104.5 $89.8 $78.4 $75.7 $73.6 $58.7 $47.1 $45.3 $28.1 $14.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $202.1 $175.5 Average: $66 MM $0 $100 $200 $300 Contributions Red Bull New York D.C. United LA Galaxy San Jose Earthquakes Real Salt Lake FC Dallas Houston Dynamo Philadelphia Union Chicago Fire Columbus Crew Colorado Rapids Orlando City SC Portland Timbers Sporting KC * Toronto FC * Montreal Impact $196.8 $155.6 $143.7 $102.9 $84.8 $78.4 $70.1 $60.4 $60.0 $52.8 $43.2 $41.2 $30.0 $24.5 Average: $24.2 $69 MM $20.8 $0 $100 $200 $300 Contributions 5

7 TAX OBLIGATION COMPARISON ($ MM) Net Present Value of 30- Year Obligations Sales Taxes Property & Ticket Taxes Surcharges TOTAL D.C. United (without abatements) $83.6 $37.3 $120.9 D.C. United (with abatements) $40.4 $30.3 $70.8 Sporting KC $20.2 $45.1 $65.2 Real Salt Lake $15.2 $42.8 $58.0 San Jose Earthquakes $20.6 $32.8 $53.4 Red Bull New York $24.2 $26.7 $50.9 Montreal Impact $0.0 $53.1 $53.1 Toronto FC $0.0 $45.8 $45.8 LA Galaxy $0.0 $39.4 $39.4 Orlando City SC $0.0 $36.4 $36.4 Colorado Rapids $1.7 $33.7 $35.4 FC Dallas $1.3 $31.1 $32.4 Columbus Crew $2.9 $28.4 $31.3 Houston Dynamo $0.0 $31.1 $31.1 Chicago Fire $0.0 $30.0 $30.0 Philadelphia Union $4.2 $23.1 $27.2 Portland Timbers $0.0 $18.8 $18.8 AVERAGE (excluding D.C.) $6.0 $34.5 $40.6 Higher Tax Obligations Lower Tax Obligations 6

8 Income Income Operating From From Estimated Expenses Operations Impact Operations Annual Debt Operating Without Before of After Debt Coverage Year Revenues Tax Breaks Tax Breaks Tax Breaks Tax Breaks Service Ratio 2017 (year 1) $27.5 $28.4 ($0.9) $5.4 $4.6 ($3.9) (year 2) $28.3 $29.2 ($0.9) $5.7 $4.7 ($3.9) (year 3) $29.1 $29.6 ($0.5) $5.7 $5.2 ($3.9) (year 4) $30.0 $30.3 ($0.3) $5.7 $5.4 ($3.9) (year 5) $30.9 $31.1 ($0.1) $5.7 $5.6 ($3.9) (year 10) $35.8 $33.6 $2.3 $4.1 $6.4 ($3.9) (year 20) $49.2 $45.0 $4.2 $1.3 $5.4 ($3.9) (year 30) $66.0 $59.3 $6.7 $0.0 $6.7 ($3.9) 1.7 Note: Assumes $60 million in 30- year debt at 5% interest, amortized monthly. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS D.C. United / Buzzard Point Stadium ($MM) 7

9 ESTIMATED RETURN ON INVESTMENT D.C. United / Buzzard Point Stadium ($ MM) Cumulative Cash Flow Team During Internal Upfront Investment Rate of Investment Horizon Investment Horizon Return 3 Years (by April 1, 2019) ($93.15) $ % 5 years (thru 2021) ($93.15) $ % 10 years (thru 2026) ($93.15) $ % 20 years (thru 2036) ($93.15) $ % 30 years (thru 2046) ($93.15) $ % 8

10 ECONOMIC AND FISCAL BENEFITS Soccer Stadium Act of 2014 ($ MM) Redeveloped New Buzzard Point Reeves Municipal Stadium Hotel Center Center Total ECONOMIC BENEFITS: Direct Spending $875.1 $366.1 $699.1 $149.2 $2,089.6 Total Output $1,130.5 $453.7 $824.4 $192.8 $2,601.5 Jobs ,683 Earnings $674.5 $196.6 $332.2 $119.2 $1,322.5 FISCAL BENEFITS: Sales Taxes $59.3 $40.9 $26.6 $4.3 $131.1 Personal Income Taxes $20.9 $6.1 $19.5 $3.7 $50.2 Property Taxes $16.8 $22.4 $ $96.8 Business Franchise Taxes $2.8 $1.1 $1.9 $0.2 $6.1 Ticket Fees $ $9.7 Total Fiscal Benefits $109.5 $70.5 $105.6 $8.2 $293.8 Land Exchange Proceeds $71.4 Total Fiscal Benefits and Land Proceeds $

11 FISCAL)COSTLBENEFIT)ANALYSIS Soccer)Stadium)Act)of)2014 ($)MM) City District)at District)at Administrator's $131.1)MM $150)MM)Cap Analysis Contribution Contribution District)Costs Soccer&Stadium $119.5 $131.1 $151.6 Reeves&Relocation $29.4 $40.6 $40.6 New&Municipal&Center $64.2 $84.2 $84.2 TOTAL)COSTS $213.0 $255.9 $276.4 Net)New)District)Benefits Buzzard&Point&Stadium $204.0 $109.5 $109.7 Buzzard&Point&Hotel $85.0 $70.5 $70.5 Reeves&Center&Redevelopment $85.0 $105.6 $105.6 New&Municipal&Center $11.0 $8.2 $8.2 NET)BENEFIT)TO)DISTRICT $172.0 $38.0 $17.6 Land&Exchange&Proceeds $71.4 $71.4 $71.4 NET)BENEFIT)TO)DISTRICT (incl.)land)exchange)proceeds) $243.4 $109.4 $

12 LAND EXCHANGE VALIDATION Methodology and Assump>ons All known appraisal reports reviewed We have completed a formal appraisal review (per USPAP Standard 3) of all appraisals provided Where exisfng appraisals were deemed insufficiently reliable, IRR prepared its own appraisal (per USPAP Standards 1 and 2) Baseline assumpfons: Assumed clear of exisfng improvements Improvements with quanffiable impacts on value considered as an adjustment to land value Assumed free and clear of environmental issues EffecFve value dates retrospecfve to 7/25/2013 (stadium announcement) 11

13 Reeves Center LAND EXCHANGE VALIDATION Findings Summary Land Value Panel site value ($60.26 million) well- supported and reliable BUT does not consider value impact of leaseback agreement Swap based on land value less demolifon costs Leaseback increases market value of Reeves by $6.5 million relafve to land value, even a^er deducfng for demolifon cost Reeves Center Leaseback Analysis Present Value Component Lease Income $14,700,000 Demolition - $4,100,000 Development Delay - $4,060,000 Net Impact of Leaseback $6,540,000 12

14 LAND EXCHANGE VALIDATION Findings Summary Reeves Center Swap basis undervalues Reeves by $11.2 million Reeves Disposition Analysis Swap Basis Market Value Land Value $60,260,000 $60,260,000 Adjustments ($4,675,000) $6,540,000 Total $55,585,000 $66,800,000 Differential ($11,215,000) 1 st & K Site Panel appraised value ($15.8 million) well- supported and reliable 13

15 LAND EXCHANGE VALIDATION Findings Summary Buzzard Point Sites Land Value Panel appraisal of Akridge site deemed reliable IRR appraisals of Buzzard Point sites concluded all except Akridge are overvalued to some degree in current agreements Buzzard Point Sites IRR Value Price/Swap Basis Pricing vs. IRR Value Akridge $21,100,000 $21,100,000 $0 Pepco $37,200,000 $40,000,000 $2,800,000 Ein/Rollingwood $6,600,000 $10,500,920 $3,900,920 Super Salvage $9,900,000 $17,147,840 $7,247,840 Total $13,948,760 Plus: Pepco Payments (est.) $5,500,000 Plus: Less: Total Net Differential $19,448,760 Environmental on all sites Clearing Super Salvage site 14

16 LAND EXCHANGE VALIDATION Findings Summary Net overpayment $30.6 million plus environmental DC United and Akridge contribufons reduce this figure to $25.7 million Figures include $5.5 million in relocafon payments to Pepco Net Differential Before Net Gain/Loss to Market Value Summary Swap/Acquisition Component Basis IRR Value Opinion 1 Environmental Reeves $55,585,000 $66,800,000 * ($11,215,000) Akridge Buzzard Point $21,100,000 $21,100,000 $0 1st & K NW $15,800,000 $15,800,000 $0 Pepco Buzzard Point $45,500,000 2 $37,200,000 ($8,300,000) Ein/Rollingwood $10,500,920 $6,600,000 * ($3,900,920) Super Salvage $17,147,840 $9,900,000 ($7,247,840) Total Differential ($30,663,760) DC United Contribution $2,500,000 Akridge Contribution $2,444,155 Net Differential after Contributions ($25,719,605) Less: Environmental on all BP sites Less: Clearing Super Salvage site 1. Market value as if vacant and free of environmental issues as of July 25, 2013, except as noted by * 2. Includes $5.5 million in estimated DC payments to Pepco for infrastructure removal/relocation * Value incorporates contribution of improvements and current/proposed leases 15

17 Key Areas of Poten>al Risk to the District The Council alters the Exchange Agreement for the Reeves Center District acquisifon/preconstrucfon obligafons exceed $150 Million cap; District expends $150 million acquisifon/preconstrucfon obligafons and D.C. United fails to construct stadium and/or hotel; Currently, not enough informafon has been provided to determine full environmental remediafon costs; Timing of parfes funding obligafons and milestone dates do not favorably align for the District under current agreements; Non- performance by developer; Uncertainty surrounding funding sources, development, design, and occupancy schedule and cost for new municipal center in AnacosFa Gateway; DC Stadium, LLC could seek property tax exempfon or other property assessment discount on stadium, thereby reducing property taxes paid to District a^er lapse of proposed tax abatements; Financial performance of Team and stadium could be less than projected. 16

18 Risk Category #1: Council Alters Exchange Agreement of Reeves Center Per the October 7, 2014 Amendment to the Akridge exchange agreement, if the Council imposes addifonal constraints on the [Reeves Center] transacfon, the parfes will renegofate the exchange agreement Limits Council s ability to alter deal without having to completely renegofate the Exchange Agreement Risk Category #2: The Actual Cost of the District s Preconstruc>on Infrastructure Obliga>ons will exceed the $150 Million Development Cost Cap This could be caused by higher than projected and/or unknown costs associated with: Not enough data to accurately determine environmental remediafon costs RelocaFon costs for PEPCO S DistribuFon Duct Bank and associated feeders, and the removal of the combusfon turbines The potenfal relocafon or design around solufon for the PEPCO high voltage lines Excessive community benefits package 17

19 Risk Category #3: District Expends $150 Million Cap to Fulfill Land Acquisi>on and Preconstruc>on Obliga>ons and Subsequently the Developer Fails to Construct the Soccer Stadium Pursuant to the current Agreement, the District must fund and complete all of its obligafons by December 31, 2016 while the Developer is requires to provide a substanfally completed stadium ready for operafon by March 1, 2018 AddiFonally, the Stadium Developer can exit the Agreement in the event it s stadium construcfon costs exceed 110% of the approved stadium project cost Risk Category #4: Non- Performance of Stadium Developer Pursuant to the Agreement the District s Liquidated Damages against the Developer for failure to provide a substanfally completed Stadium is limited to $5 M and receipt of that amount is confngent upon Developer showing that it has spent in excess of $4.5 M in ConstrucFon cost on the Stadium. Consequently, there is a possibility that the District would not receive any liquidated damages a^er spending $150 M on the Stadium Project. At this Fme, DC United has not provided plans for securing the necessary financing to build the stadium or ancillary development pieces. The District will have commiped most or all of its investment before the Team confirms its financing 18

20 Risk Category #5: Timing of the Par>es Funding obliga>ons and milestone dates do not favorably align for the District under the current agreements Milestone June$15,$2015:$Reeves$Center$repurchase$deadline March$31,$2015:$District$must$have$Site$Control$of$Land April$15,$2015:$Feasibility$Studies$and$any$study$undertaken$ by$developer$that$reasonably$demonstrates$that$stadium$ cannot$be$constructed$for$less$than$110%$of$projected$ Stadium$Budget June$1,$2015:$Mutual$agreement$on$solution$to$either$ relocate$or$design$around$pepco$high$voltage$lines March$1,$2016:$District$must$have$completed$Construction$ Infrastructure$Obligations;$demolished$the$Demolition$ Structure;$and$Completed$the$Voluntary$CleanPup$Plan December$31,$2016:$District$must$have$completed$ Construction$Infrastructure$Obligations Risk(to(District Developer$has$right$to$terminate$agreement Developer(may$terminate$agreement Either(party$may$terminate$agreement District$shall$pay$or$shall$cause$Convention$Center$Authority$ to$waive$rfk$facility$fee$for$dc$soccer$until$district$ obligation$completed$ Developer(may$also$decide$to$terminate$agreement Either(party(may$terminate$agreement AddiFonally, Pursuant to the Exchange Agreement, SWLH may close on the transfer of the District- owned Reeves Center as early as 30 days a^er the passing of the District of Columbia Soccer Stadium Development Act of This suggests that the transfer of the Reeves Center is not confngent upon the fulfillment of any construcfon of the Stadium. Similarly, pursuant to the PEPCO LOI, the District- owned properfes at 1 st and K may also be transferred from the District to PEPCO as early as 30 days a^er passage of the Soccer Stadium Act regardless of any construcfon on the Stadium.

21 Risk Category #6: Uncertainty surrounding the Development and occupancy schedule for the proposed New Government Center in Anacos>a Pursuant to the May 23, 2014 Exchange Agreement between the District and SWLH, the District would be required to lease back from SWLH the space within the Reeves Center for a period of 3 years (which is the Fmeframe contemplated for complefng the New Government Center). Currently, no funding sources, development schedules, or occupancy plans have been created for the New Government Center. These unknowns subject the District to construcfon risks (delays from enftled process to relocafon) and financial risks associated with delays in the construcfon and occupancy of the New Government Center. Risk Category #7: Funding Future Stadium Renova>ons and Improvements As a stadium approaches it s year anniversary, it is not uncommon for stadium ownership to seek public financing for facility renovafons, modificafons, or upgrades. This potenfal risk would need to be integrated into the 30- year cost- benefit analysis. 20

22 Risk Category # 8: DC Stadium LLC seeks future property tax exemp>on or addi>onal abatement placing property taxes paid to the District at risk As currently structured in its Ground Lease with the District, DC Stadium LLC the Soccer Stadium Developer is required to pay Real Estate Taxes on the Stadium Land to the District on a phased- in basis over the schedule set forth below: Rent Year Obliga>on to Pay Real Estate Taxes Prior to the first Rent Year Rent Years 1 5 Rent Years 6 10 Rent Years Rent Years Rent Years 21 end of Term 0% of Assessed Value 0% of Assessed Value 25% of Assessed Value 50% of Assessed Value 75% of Assessed Value 100% of Assessed Value There is a high probability that DC Stadium LLC would, at some point in the future, seek a property tax exempfon or addifonal abatement placing property taxes paid to the District at risk. 21