In response to the story headlined --
"Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director" -- stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock issued a statement:
"The current discussion about the funding of the Dome from hotel taxes or not is not consequential to the RSA’s legal arguments. The RSA’s lawyers are not arguing that a vote is unnecessary because the voters already approved the hotel/motel tax. They are arguing that a vote would violate the RSA statute and the City Charter.
"We have said all along that the city's contribution to a new stadium would come from a combination of existing revenue streams, i.e. extending the $5-million debt service payments currently used for the Dome and the $1-million from the preservation fund payments once they expire in 2024 plus taxes generated by the game day experience.
"
On the surface, I do believe the direct taxes from the Rams, the indirect taxes from game days, plus events in the Dome like tractor pulls, plus hotel/restaurant and other taxes generated by those convention goers resulting from having the Dome
likely do cover the city Dome payments.
"
As to whether that will be true in the new stadium, we don't know enough to say. We know the Dome will generate more revenue for our convention business with the Rams out of the building. We know the Rams exiting the Dome but staying in the market is better than having them leave altogether. We do know a new outdoor stadium positions the city better relative to attracting MLS soccer. We also know that redeveloping the North Riverfront is imperative.
"We have said for quite some time that the city's portion would come from the existing Dome payments being extended plus revenue generated by the game day experience.
"That has not changed. Bottom line, between the State and the City,
we should be able to fund the public portion of the proposed new stadium without tax increases."
http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1118127
