Hello crimeriddendump, I am confused by your calculations in your second point. Past Bulletin articles have noted that the city is not responsible for the $500,000 in annual maintenance and operations costs for BLD. That fiscal responsibility falls on BLD management. I don't think the city of Manteca would be in the hole for $100,000, as per your figures. However, why I feel BLD was a poor investment for the city is that for a $30 million initial output, the city is basically recouping only $14 million after 35 years. The $400,000 figure is what the city makes annually from a 16% to 20% share of the concessions sales ONLY (no share of revenue for team charges, attendance gate, etc.) So, while Manteca theoretically saves the $500,000 supposed yearly operational and maintenance charges for 35 years for a total of $17.5 million, they have given up AT LEAST 80% of the profits. In other words, just looking at concession sales, if Manteca's 20% cut is $400,000 per year, then the total concession sales would be $2 million. This does not even include BLD mangement profits from entrance fees or team registration fees. With concessions alone, the city could have made $2 million x 35 years or $70 million. Deducting the $17.5 million in maintenance and operations costs and the $30 million initial investment, the city would have still cleared $22.5 million over the 35 years on concession sales alone if the city had managed BLD without using an outside firm.
BLD is really only a success story for BLD management who made a sweet deal with the city and pocket the lion's share of all the profits. I don't think Dennis Wyatt is a liar, but I disagree with his rosy assessment of the city leadership's decisions regarding BLD. Sincerely, Karen
Thanks for your comments.
My conclusion about the $100,000 deficit comes from the pages of this very publication. In the article located at http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archiv..., Dennis Wyatt writes:
"The city-owned complex was designed and is being operated and maintained for 35 years by BLD."
What happens AFTER the 35 years? As you point out, the City will not be breaking even $30 MILLION in 35 years, they will only have $14 MILLION.
So, as I asked before, who is responsable for the $500,000 maintenance after 35 years is up? From what I read, the CITY will be left holding the bag. Feel free to point out any article or documentation that says the BLD management will continue to indefinitely pay maintenance fees. I have ONLY seen the 35 year agreement and that - as you point out - leads to insolvency.
And I will disagree, their Dennis Wyatt is a liar, or he fundamentally does not understand basic mathematics. Either way, the Manteca Bulletin is clearly NOT on the side of independent and objective journalism and he and the hole staff of the Bulletin should be embarased, ashamed and run out of town on boards.
Hello crimeriddendump, You raise a good point about what happens AFTER the 35 year agreement is up. My guess is that if BLD is still functioning after the 35 year time frame (and I find that questionable)and the BLD management decides to no longer participate in or continue the agreement, the city will be on the hook for the maintenance costs, but also will keep all the profits (if any) instead of merely 20% of a part of the money generated. I still believe that this was NOT a good investment or idea for the city, because of the financial figures that we previously discussed. Some supporters, however, try to tie in the Stadium retail shopping center (Kohl's, Costco, etc.) with BLD and contend that this development and any sales tax generated benefit the city and is intertwined with the BLD project. Sincerely, Karen
Agreed. By all accounts, the city is set to be at least $16 Million in the hole on the BLD agreement. Now, combine this with the building the Animal Shelter, Maintenance Yard, Train Station without trains, and future indoor water park that no one wants and one wonders how Manteca is not a small scale Stockton.
Manteca's financial mismanagement seems to be equal to, if not worse than, Stockton's.
There was an article today lauding Manteca for having the ability to grow the fire and police staff (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/sectio...).
The whole premiss of that article is disingenuous at best and an outright LIE at worst.
Perhaps you are not prepared to label the editor here as an outright LIAR yet, but, one cannot deny that Dennis Wyatt has a MAJOR problem editorializing the news and infusing his own - and often very misguided -opinions in news articles and presenting them as facts.
The people of Manteca deserve straight talk and direct news. Not the political spin on reality favored by Weatherford and his tool Wyatt.
Hello crimeriddendump, Here is what is most disturbing to me: Manteca has a public safety endowment fund of over $8 MILLION !!! and the city council waits until things are this bad (increased gang activity, drive by shootings, etc.) before tapping this fund in any significant way (Previously the council decided to only use the interest on this reserve for any public safety funding). Again, I don't believe that Dennis Wyatt is a liar, but an obvious spin, trying to put this only in a positive light, is definitely occurring. The public should take the city council to task for sitting on these funds, specifically earmarked for public safety, for so long. What good is a reserve fund, virtually untapped while sitting there collecting interest, if the public is endangered and citizens are being injured or killed? The Bulletin needs to do less cheer-leading for the city leadership and more critical analysis and investigative reporting that truly benefits Manteca's citizens. Sincerely, Karen
Disturbing indeed. Even more dsiturbing when one compares the "facts" in the article from today (Jun 29, 2012) versus the "facts" from a different Manteca Bulletin article about the endowment fund from Feb, 11, 2011 (http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archiv...).
Interestingly, the 2011 article claims the endowment fund totaled "$8.4 million" and each new home collected at least $8,000 per new home constructed and only paid for two (2) officers. We know from another MB article that four (4) officers cost $591,000 per year. Therefore, two officers would logically cost about say $300,000.
But no. The Bulletin tells ANOTHER set of lies:
"The money generated $385,093 in interest the initial year against $229,763 in expenses for hiring two officers for more than three quarters of the year.
But as the economy went into a tailspin interest rates dropped. This year expenses have jumped to $375,960 as both officers are now working year round. At the same time interest income dropped to $122,900. That created the need to tap $253,060 of principal."
So why is it that yesterday, the MB listed FOUR (4) officers as only costing $591,000 while two officers cost $375,960? WHY is it today, the MB said the Police Endowment fund totaled $8.1 Million? Has there been ZERO CONSTRUCTION and ZERO FEES COLLECTED since 2011?? Was there ZERO INTEREST COLLECTED?
Something does not add up. By pretty much all reasonable calculations, a) at least $100,000 is missing from the endowment fund b) the cost estimates for four (4) police is grossly underestimated c) the city cannot maintain this proposition longterm.
Now KarenPearsall, are we being told lies, or, is the editor just incapable of reporting facts? So far the MB editor has misrepresented the city's financies every chance he gets. One must ask; is Dennis Wyatt lying to the people of Manteca, or , is he just reprinting someone else's lies. Either way, it is clear the Bulletin is not presenting the full story to its readers.
Sounds like its time to go to the council meetings and participate. Not just a few like Fleener, but anyone who lives in this town.
This blogger makes good points, and we have a supposed news source that is trying to put a positive spin on the situation. Therefor, we can't depend on the paper to provide us facts, leaving one option, and that is to continually attend the meetings applying enough pressure that the real facts are exposed, and if needed, and new direction is discussed to alleviate potential downfalls.