PSV PROPOSAL C O N T E M P O R A RY M L S S TA D I U M F U N D I N G  Contemporary MLS projects have an average project cost of $205 MM  Average public contribution totals $72 MM or 35% of total project cost Project Cost Public Private Public Share Private Share Contribution Contribution 2019 $ 218.0 $ 18.0 $ 200.0 8% 92% Washington, DC 2019 $ 400.0 $ 150.0 $ 250.0 38% 63% Los Angeles 2018 $ 350.0 $ - $ 350.0 0% 100% 4 [2] Orlando City Stadium Orlando 2017 $ 156.0 $ - $ 156.0 0% 100% 5 Avaya Stadium San Jose 2015 $ 99.7 $ 1.5 $ 98.2 2% 98% 6 BBVA Compass Stadium Houston 2012 $ 101.0 $ 41.0 $ 60.0 41% 59% Kansas City 2011 $ 203.2 $ 183.0 $ 20.2 90% 10% New York 2010 $ 300.0 $ 85.0 $ 215.0 28% 72% Philadelphia 2010 $ 122.0 $ 73.0 $ 49.0 60% 40% Salt Lake City 2008 $ 117.5 $ 72.5 $ 45.0 62% 38% Denver 2007 $ 183.0 $ 162.0 $ 21.0 89% 11% - - $ $ $ $ 99.7 $ 204.6 $ 71.5 400.0 $ 183.0 200.0+ TBD $ $ $ $ 20.2 133.1 350.0 200.0 0.0% 34.9% 90.1% - 9.9% 65.1% 100.0% - # Stadium 1 [1, 2] Allianz Field 2 [1] Audi Field 3 [2] Banc of California Stadium 7 Children's Mercy Park 8 Red Bull Arena 9 Talen Energy Stadium 10 Rio Tinto Stadium 11 Dick's Sporting Goods Park Minimum Average Maximum Proposed MLS Stadium Market (MSA) Year Built Minneapolis Source: Internet research; B&D database [1] Under construction; final budget TBD [2] Project cost does not include land and infrastructure contributions by public agencies 1 PSV PROPOSAL KEY TERMS  PSV’s proposed term sheet calls for a project with construction costs not to exceed $200 MM  The City is responsible for site preparation and remediation, presently estimated at $2 MM by the City  PSV will privately finance construction of the stadium  PSV will take responsibility for cost overruns on the stadium project  The team will have rights to all revenues and be responsible for both ongoing operational and capital expenses (allowing for a fixed number of City event dates)  The initial term is 20 years with options for three renewals of the same duration  PSV will donate the stadium to the City and pay $1 in rent each year but be exempt from property tax 2 PSV PROPOSAL R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S T O C O U N C I L  Examine opportunities to maximize on-site affordable housing  In order to eliminate the cost overrun risk associated with site development and off-site infrastructure, the City should require a clear list of utility / infrastructure design specifications in advance.  The City should also require a more clear definition of site preparation, in order to eliminate ambiguity that may result in added cost to the City.  To establish a clear quality standard for the facility it will own, the City should require the identification of an agreedupon list of other MLS stadia representing the desired quality of architecture and construction.  For the same reason, the City should also require approval rights over a set of basis architectural documents that will represent the standard to be maintained throughout construction.  During the stadium development process, the City should require (and agree to participate collaboratively in) the development of a Transportation and Parking Plan for stadium events.  The City should include a non-relocation lease provision for the Team, requiring that if the Team should break the lease during its term that it would be obligated to repay city’s cost of and development and / or demolition of stadium and clearing of site for another use. 3 INTRODUCTIONS B&D VENUES AND PROJECT PERSONNEL Specialized practice group within Brailsford & Dunlavey that focuses exclusively on the planning and project management of public assembly venues 70+ Chris Dunlavey, FAIA President Bryan Slater Senior Project Manager ♦Co-Founder of B&D ♦Eight years with B&D ♦Leader of B&D VENUES ♦Experience with MLS, NBA, NHL, and MLB Facilities ♦Recipient of SBJ’s “40 under 40” award ♦Over 75 public assembly venue projects Municipal Venues Projects 4 METHODOLOGY E C O N O M I C A N D F I S C A L I M PA C T A N A LY S I S  Economic and fiscal impacts are calculated based on net new spending in a market  Impacts are measured during construction (onetime) and on a recurring basis  Economic impacts are expressed in terms of output, wages, and FTE jobs  Fiscal impacts are public tax revenues generated by various spending patterns Economic Impact Flow Chart  Impacts to the County are inclusive of those to the City; totals are not additive 4 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD E C O N O M I C I M PA C T S  Direct spending during the construction period will generate meaningful impacts  City totals:  $54.2 million in economic activity  $49 million in wages  934 FTE Jobs Construction Period Totals City of Austin Direct Output $ 39,200,000 Direct Wages $ 28,000,000 Direct Employment 491 Indirect Output $ Indirect Wages $ Indirect Employment 14,962,640 20,970,320 443 Output: $ Wages: $ Jobs (FTE): Average Wage: Totals 54,162,640 48,970,320 934 $52,418 $ $ $ $ $ $ Travis County 53,600,000 33,600,000 589 34,773,000 40,786,560 938 Totals 88,373,000 74,386,560 1,528 $48,691  Impacts from site preparation are not included  Fiscal impacts are not quantifiable; construction materials will not be subject to sales and use taxes based on PSV’s proposal 5 RECURRING OPERATIONS PAT R O N S P E N D I N G T O TA L S  Patron spending will provide the basis for a large portion of recurring impacts  All spending from in-market day trippers is considered displacement spending  Patron spending provides an estimated $10.1 MM in direct spending to the City Spending Category Lodging Food and Beverage Retail Transportation Gross Spending Displacement Total Spending Adjusted Spending Local Market Purchase Direct Spending Spending Category Lodging Food and Beverage Retail Transportation Gross Spending Displacement Total Spending Adjusted Spending Local Market Purchase Direct Spending In-Market Day Trippers $ $ 10.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 100% $ 16,808,313 $ 12,586,690 80% $ 10,069,352 In-Market Day Trippers $ 10.00 $ $ 5.00 $ 3.00 100% $ 16,198,523 $ 11,132,576 85% $ 9,462,689 Out-of-Market Day Trippers $ $ $ 2,130,771 $ 20.00 $ 1,065,385 $ 7.00 639,231 $ $ 4.00 $ 4,221,623 $ 0% 170,462 213,077 Out-of-Market Day Trippers $ $ $ 2,556,925 $ 20.00 $ 1,278,462 $ 7.00 $ 767,077 $ 4.00 $ 5,065,947 $ 0% 255,692 $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,409,233 1,193,232 681,847 5,816,458 5,816,458 127,846 $ $ 2,556,925 $ 894,924 $ 511,385 $ 4,362,344 $ 4,362,344 Overnight Patrons $ 93.33 38.00 $ 8.00 $ $ 5.00 - $ Overnight Patrons 93.33 $ 38.00 $ $ 8.00 5.00 $ 0% 42,615 $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,977,439 1,619,386 340,923 213,077 6,770,232 6,770,232 42,615 $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,977,439 1,619,386 340,923 213,077 6,770,232 6,770,232 6 RECURRING OPERATIONS E C O N O M I C I M PA C T S  Net new direct spending will create meaningful recurring impacts  City totals:  $25.6 million in economic activity  $22.1 million in wages  342 FTE Jobs  20-Year NPV: $384 million in economic activity and $332 million in wages  Other considerations:  The scope of MLS team operations is likely to expand in 2022 with a new television agreement  The approach to displacement spending is conservative and may slightly understate impacts Annual Totals Franchise & Stadium Operation Direct: Franchise & Stadium Operation Indirect: Patron Spending Direct: Patron Spending Indirect: $ $ $ $ City of Austin 8,458,861 3,559,002 10,204,298 3,410,140 Team Operation Direct Wages: $ Team Operation Indirect Wages: $ Patron Spending Indirect Wages: $ Sub-Total 12,699,582 6,447,175 2,971,668 Franchise & Stadium Operation Direct Jobs (FTE): Team Operation Indirect Jobs (FTE): Patron Spending Indirect Jobs (FTE): Sub-Total 131 109 102 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Travis County 10,163,864 5,183,858 9,591,075 6,688,063 Sub-Total 14,371,882 12,383,351 3,972,443 Sub-Total 144 232 130 Totals 25,632,302 22,118,425 342 64,614 $ Totals 31,626,860 30,727,675 507 60,613 20-Year NPV at 4.5% City of Austin Output: $ 384,368,980 Wages: $ 331,676,661 $ $ Travis County 474,260,322 460,776,604 Output: $ Wages: $ Jobs (FTE): Average Wage: $ $ $ 7 RECURRING OPERATIONS F I S C A L I M PA C T S  The 20-Year NPV of fiscal impacts measures $11.4MM to the City and $5.4 MM to Cap Metro  The City and Cap Metro each benefits from $349,000 in sales and use tax in 2021  The City will also receive $322,000 in HOT and $58,000 from the mixed beverage tax in 2021 Category Sales & Use Tax Jurisdiction City $ 2021 348,518 $ - $ - CMTA $ - $ - $ Mixed Beverage Tax CIty $ - $ - $ Hotel Occupancy Tax City $ - $ - $ County / City $ - $ - $ City Tax Impact - $ - $ - $ 729,322 $ 827,130 $ 970,563 CMTA Tax Impact - $ - $ - $ 348,518 $ 394,355 $ 462,741 County Tax Impact - - $ - $ 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Total $ 11,406,201 $ 5,438,898 $ - Sales & Use Tax [1] Property Tax 20-Year NPV City Tax Impact CMTA Tax Impact Property Tax Impact 2019 2020 $ 2025 394,355 $ 2030 462,741 348,518 $ 394,355 $ 462,741 58,377 $ 66,344 $ 77,849 366,430 $ 429,973 322,426 $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - [1] Property tax es are presently not collected on the proposed proejct site 8