Should the City Council approve the agreement between Virginia Beach and United States Management to build an arena at the resort? Yes or no. Why or why not?

I say Yes

I say No

Tax Incentives “Payments”. Remember no city funds will be used to pay for the arena but they call them tax incentive payments…not quite sure about that..

Here are the tax incentives:

All taxes generated by the arena- Estimated $3.6M/year = $144M in 40 years

1% point of the City’s 8% hotel tax. (Not 1% of the revenue of the tax but 12.5% of revenue…1/8)-$3.4M/year = $136M in 40 years to go directly to the lender.

Real Estate and Personal Property taxes returned- $1.5M/year = $60M in 40 years

State sales and use taxes - $143k/year = $5.7M in 40 years

In conclusion the city is responsible for $79M in upfront costs and up to $345M in tax incentives.

That’s $424M the city is responsible for!

Also if the operator (same as developer) defaults on the loan/operating agreement the City (Guarantor) has to either take over the full note and finance fees associated with it or the area has to be sold into foreclosure in which the city has no say on who buys.

I say No

I say No

$500+ million from City revenue (excludes "but-for" rebates) to USM; USM equity less than City project cost cap; $75 million off-site infrastructure bonds & debt service may impair remedies to Old Beach drainage projects currently being studied and expected to cost more than $100 million; No prohibition of foreign government influence/control.

I say No

The City's funding contribution to the project results in zero equity in the arena building, this does not sound like a good deal for the public. The value of the arena will rise when it is completed and the city gets nothing other than tax revenues, which is based on level of utilization. For USM, its a win no matter what. And a huge win if a professional team buys the arena. Again, the City must hold equity in the building to be a win for the public.

I say Yes

I say No

many reasons take your pick

I say Yes

I agree with increasing year round tourism. My concern however, is the traffic congestion this venue will cause. I believe it is a great idea but we also have to look into light rail and others ways of mitigating the increased traffic congestion issues.

I say No

My concerns are that contract says the city can not build a facility with 4000 seats or more with in a 5 mile radius for the next 30 years. What will the city do if Oceana shuts down and we can't utilize that land for other arenas or venues to entertain our tourists'. The parking has not been considered enough. Why isn't the police training center/ Seatack park across the steet being used to build a parking garage? Is the city paying private parking lot owners (holiday Travel) for the use of their lots from May until Oct. each year? Parking issues need to be addressed before moving forward.

I say No

I say No. Many reasons why include: Poor decision on location (increased congestion in an already crowded venue); enormous cost to city ($75M) for "infrastructure" improvements; specious analysis of the benefits of this burden on taxpayers; prospect of a tremendously expensive "white elephant" in the middle of a beach resort area if the project fails; requirement for increased future municipal maintenance and support costs as the facility ages; Speculative funding from foreign nation, China in particular, should be enough to kill this deal; inexperience of local pass through business in these endeavors. Bottom line, if this facility is constructed the city will eventually own it and 10 years from now we will be talking about how this was ever allowed to happen. Council needs to reject this proposal if they indeed represent the people of Virginia Beach and not wealthy special interests.