The revised pitch made by city council president Texter and city mayor Brenner was that the financing was all taken care of and not one cent would come from city or county taxpayers.
City balks at tax-break pitch
Baseball stadium developers seek incentives
By MIKE HOOVER
Daily Record/Sunday News
Sunday, August 14, 2005
At bottom: · What developers want
York Councilwoman Vickie Washington gasped when she was asked to sponsor legislation to waive up to $280,000 in permit fees as the city’s contribution to build a 6,000-seat baseball stadium.
She remembers a city official sitting to her side bursting into laughter, she said.
There was no way a cash-strapped city with the highest property tax rate in the county would give away $280,000 to the for-profit owner of an Atlantic League franchise, she said. Not after refusing similar waivers for William Penn Senior High School, the York County Judicial Center and York Hospital.
“I was shocked they would even ask,” Washington said.
After meeting privately and individually with council members this week, Darrell Auterson said he got the message to drop the request.
Auterson is involved in negotiations with Peter Kirk and Keystone Baseball, the proposed owners of the independent-league team. Auterson is president of York County Economic Development Corp. and executive director of the York County Industrial Development Authority. The YCEDC and YCIDA will own and manage the stadium.
“We know pretty clearly where they stand,” Auterson said.
While council members were firm on building permit fees, they were less clear on other concessions that remain under negotiation, including:
Property taxes: Keystone Baseball wants to base future property taxes on the current $2 million assessment, which brings in $27,000 in taxes to the city, $8,500 to the county and $44,500 to the school district.
City officials have said those taxes would not cover the increased cost for services such as police, fire and public works.
Washington and Councilman Wm. Lee Smallwood said the value should be established by the county assessor’s office and be closer to the $28 million construction estimate, bringing in more than 10 times the amount in taxes.
Council members Toni Smith, Cameron Texter and Joe Musso don’t want the tax issue to kill baseball.
“I think we should get more,” Smith said. “But at the same time, I think we want to be fair.”
The school board and county commissioners also have to approve any tax concession deal.
Commissioners Steve Chronister and Doug Kilgore said county taxpayers have made it clear they do not want to fund baseball. This is one reason the county decided against backing an $8 million bond for the project, Chronister said.
“My initial thoughts are they are receiving $12 million in (state) taxpayer money. How much do they need?” Chronister said. “Here is someone in the business to make millions of dollars. Peter Kirk isn’t putting his money up to help York County. He’s a businessman.”
Admission tax: Smallwood said he was told by negotiators Kirk would not would not pay an admission tax. Auterson asked the city to repeal the 5 percent tax on the cost of admission. If attendance projections are met, that tax could mean $150,000 in revenue.
“Everyone involved in this project is making money, except the city and the taxpayers,” Smallwood said.
Texter said the admission tax is still subject to negotiations. Musso said the city could agree not to implement the admission fee, if other concessions can be reached.
“The deal is doable within reason,” Musso said.
State grant: The county industrial development authority, which would co-own the stadium, wants to administer the $12 million state grant for the city. For that, the authority could earn a 1 percent administrator’s fee of $120,000, to be paid out of the grant. Washington said the city should be the administrator and collect that fee. Texter said the city is not eligible to receive administrative fees. Musso said he was not sure.
Arch Street: Stadium proponents want the state Department of Transportation to turn over control of Arch Street to the city. The move is needed to widen Arch Street for stadium traffic but would shift snow removal and maintenance costs to the city. The council has not discussed the matter but Musso said he wouldn’t object.
“It is the cost of doing business,” Musso said.
Auterson said he set up the meetings this week to begin discussing critical issues that have to be resolved quickly to meet an aggressive timeline to begin construction in the spring.
“We do not want to get to a crucial point and find there is no way in the world someone will agree to that,” Auterson said.
Washington and Smallwood said Auterson was simply seeing how far he could push a majority of council members in supporting controversial proposals. They predict being on the losing end of many 3-2 votes on stadium issues.
“I am concerned that a majority of council will give the farm away to get this project done,” Smallwood said.
What developers want
What they want: Stadium developers want the city to lock the property tax rate on the current value of the land.
What that means: Potentially 10 times less in taxes than if the rate were to be set at the stadium’s full assessed value.
What they want: To waive the 5 percent tax on the price of admission.
What that means: Up to $150,000 a year for the city.
What they want: For the city, not the state, to take care of Arch Street.
What that means: Snow removal and street repair costs shift from PennDOT to York.
What they want: Waive building permit and inspection fees.
What that means: A one-time loss of $280,000 for the city.
What they want: Let the stadium owners administer a $12 million state stadium grant.
What that means: Unsure. Some say the city could miss out on a $120,000 fee it would get as the administrator.
