I found the first amendment to the ball park lease. As it applies to parking the only thing that I saw in the amendment was that in years 25-30 of the lease the city will be entitled to $1.60 per parking spot per year.
The lease is now for thirty years with the sports group having the option to extend the lease three times for five years each. That brings the period in which they can control the ball park to 45 years.
The lease will cost $400,000 per year for the first five years and escalates all the way up to $644,204 per year in years 25 to 30.
City use
The sports group gets first priority in using the facility each of the 365 days of the year.
The city may request to use the facility for:
“civic-oriented, community not-for profit or educational events such as City ceremonies, conferences, conventions, meetings and training sessions”
and the sports group will allow them to use it if the sports group does not have something else scheduled for that day. In other words the city only gets to use the stadium if the sports group does not want it that day, and the city cannot use the arena to make a profit.
Concession
When the city is using the stadium the sports group has the right to run the concessions. If the sports group declines to run the concessions for a city event, the city must “negotiate an agreement” with the sports group’s existing concessionaires.
The city will reimburse the sports group for any extra expenses that running the city event cause.
City ticket revenue
The city may place a surcharge of fifty cents for each ticket sold for a ball park event. That number increases each five years up to eighty cents per ticket in years 25-30.
Escalator
I can understand setting fixed amounts for leasing of large facilities. What does not make sense is a ticket surcharge that goes from fifty cents to eighty cents after 25 years. Where were the city people in this negotiation?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
And from what we saw in the TORA emails, the terms were downloaded mostly “as is” from MS to Wilson to CC. This is what we pay city staff to do – download special interest legislation without serious negotiating of terms on our behalf. Then the presstitutes at the Times started blowing the horn promoting the deal and calling anyone who opposed it “crazies” and “livids.” Then Wilson bought their building for list price and no one on CC spoke up for us to say, “How about you take $5MM or GFY?”
People wonder why businesses won’t locate here and young grads leave, too. Instead, we’re entertained by two CC members in a pissing match with each other, much to the delight of local blog yuppies.
LikeLike
I think it’s just all part of a rotten deal … whoever said one rotten apple doesn’t spoil the whole bunch?… that the city cannot make a profit on using the ballpark on a few events (if they can wrangle permiso). The city gets peanuts and is supposed to come up with huge payments extending another 25 to 30 years with that humongous balloon just waiting to kill us. Didn’t we learn anything about balloon payments from all the foreclosure disaster stories after the lax mortgage deals that we ended up bailing out all those financial giants. Here we go again… May I survive that long to be proven proven wrong.
LikeLike