San Diego Council To Hear City Staff’s Concerns Over Mission Valley Stadium Offer

Speaker 1: 00:00 The San Diego city council this afternoon we'll consider the terms of SDS shoes. Eddie, six point $2 million offered by the mission Valley stadium site, the city attorney's office and independent budget analyst raised concerns about the offer last week, the university plans to build a satellite campus and college football stadium on the 135 acre site for more on this next step, KPBS reporter Andrew Bowen joins us. Andrew, welcome. Thank you Jane. Both the city attorney's office and the independent budget analyst raised concerns that SDSU is only offering to pay appreciation on a portion of the land. Why is appreciation of factor in the steel? Speaker 2: 00:39 The city and SDSU have been negotiating over the sale of this property for almost a year now and in that amount of time the value of the land has actually gone up. This is a dynamic situation here and it's going to go up even more between now and when the deal ultimately closes. So SDSU initially offered to pay a price that was based on 20 $17 and that reflected an appraisal that was done and funded by both of the parties. The updated offer is based on an agreement to consider inflation and pay in the the dollars of the time when the deal closes. But here's the trick. The inflation of the value of the land is only going to apply to about a third of the land. And that's the land that's owned by the city's water utility fund. The rest is owned by the city's general fund. So SDSU is offer, basically it calculates inflation on a smaller portion of the land and acts as if the greater portion of the land isn't appreciating in value. And the IBA and the city attorney's office recommend just asking for justification, why should it, why should they inflation only apply to a portion of the land. Speaker 1: 01:43 And talk to us about why this is such an issue for the city attorney and IBA, his office. Speaker 2: 01:48 So whatever SDSU pays, the city will ultimately be split into two different funds and the funds that correspond to the, the property that it owns. So the smaller portion of the, of the money would go into the water utility fund and that could pay for a replacement of the city's crumbling water mains. You know, we see failing water pipes throughout the city all the time so that, or it could help stabilize water rates. The larger portion of the fund would go to infrastructure throughout the city. So it could go to any number of projects, road repaving, streetlights, upgrades to city owned, uh, businesses like police stations or rec centers. And so if the general fund portion of the land is not indexed to inflation, then it basically just begs the question, um, why should the rest of the projects, the needs in the city kind of get shortchanged? Speaker 1: 02:37 Another concern is that the offer requires the city to set aside 10 million from the general fund for infrastructure near the stadium property. What does SDSU want that money set aside for? Speaker 2: 02:48 Uh, SDSU wants the city to fund the lion's share of a new bridge at Fenton Parkway on this is just West of the stadium property right by the mission Valley library on this bridge was long contemplated, uh, in city planning documents. And SDSU decided that because it's offsite, they're not actually obligated to pay for that construction of the bridge. Um, they all, the SDSU also wants the city to commit about one point $5 million to other infrastructure needs related to the project, but they don't really specify what those are. And why is this a problem? According to the city attorney and independent budget analyst? Well, the, the IBA in particular likes the city council to have as much freedom as possible on how to spend its money. So let's say, you know, a few years from now, the mayor and city council decide that the greatest infrastructure needs in the city are in a different part of the city. Speaker 2: 03:41 They're not in mission Valley. In fact, take for example, the OB pier that was damaged by some, a storm surge there, a sidewalks in Southeast San Diego, bathrooms in Balbo park. The city has nearly $2 billion billion with a B in unfunded infrastructure needs throughout the entire city. So there's no shortage of ideas on how to spend this money. And if the city promises to spend 10 million on infrastructure related to this new mission Valley development, then that really delimits the city's ability to spend it elsewhere. Even if they decide that those other needs in the rest of the city are more pressing than those in mission Valley. And remind us why the fit Parkway bridge is such an important part of this project. SDSU with this redevelopment of this property is going to be adding a lot more activity to the area that's going to add more vehicles, more people coming in and out. Speaker 2: 04:31 And mission Valley as everyone listening already knows, is notoriously clogged with traffic. So Ventin Parkway currently dead ends right at the trolley tracks and the San Diego river and the city wants this bridge so that it can connect that area, that intensity of use North of the river with the rest of mission Valley South of the river, the property, uh, however the stadium property is going to be developed over about 20 years. And so the bridge might not actually be really needed until let's say year 10 or year 15 when more and more people are moving into that property. So does the city, the, this is the question that the city attorney and the IBA are asking, does the city really want to set aside all of this money right now and limit that flexibility of where I could spend it elsewhere? Both offices also raised concerns about the university's March 27th deadline to close escrow. Speaker 2: 05:21 Why does the university want to close by then and why does the city think it's problematic? SDSU wants to close sooner rather than later for several reasons. One, as we mentioned, the property value is actually going up with each passing day. And so the sooner they close, the lower the price they'll, they'll end up having to pay. Also, they really need to work on building this new stadium for the Aztecs. They aim to have the stadium finished for their football team by the 2022 football season. So every day really counts here. The city wants from the city's perspective, they want enough time to review all of the details in this purchase and sale agreement to make sure that it's thoroughly vetted. It's fully complying with measure G, which is really what started this whole thing. And um, you know, if they, if they're found to be violating the municipal code and the will of the voters, then that could potentially open, um, open things up for a lawsuit, which nobody wants. And of course this deal just has to be air tight and there are a lot of pitfalls. It's extraordinarily complex. So there's this risk that the urgency from the university's perspective could ultimately hurt the city's ability just to make sure that, that the taxpayers are getting the best deal they can. I've been speaking with KPBS Metro reporter, Andrew Bowen. Andrew. Thank you. My pleasure. Jane.