• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

Athletic Facilities

According to ChatGTP, it would be funded and paid back as follows:

Here’s a realistic, “state-entity–friendly” financing playbook for a 40,000-seat Sacramento State stadium at Cal Expo. I’ll focus on legal vehicles California already uses, what each can fund, and how to stack them without over-relying on any single source.


Core public financing tools (state + CSU + partners)​


  1. CSU Systemwide Revenue Bonds (SRB)

  • The CSU Trustees regularly issue tax-exempt SRBs for auxiliaries and athletics-related facilities (backed by pledged systemwide revenues such as parking, housing, student union fees, and certain auxiliary rents). Cal State University+1
  • A CSU auxiliary (e.g., a Foundation or Athletic Corp.) can also issue debt with campus approval under Title 5/Ed. Code. Legal Information Institutecsuaoa.org

  1. State Public Works Board (SPWB) lease-revenue structure (lease-leaseback)

  • SPWB may issue lease-revenue bonds to finance state facilities; a state entity then pays base rent subject to annual appropriation. It’s common for major public buildings and can be adapted when the state is the beneficial user/lessee. dgs.ca.gov+1

  1. Cal Expo statutory authority & master planning

  • Cal Expo (a state entity) plans and improves its property under the Food & Agricultural Code (master plan authority). This is the legal umbrella under which a ground lease/JPA/P3 can be anchored on Cal Expo land. Justia Law

  1. Joint Powers Authority (JPA) & Lease-Revenue Bonds


  1. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) for off-site work

  • The City/County can form an EIFD around Cal Expo to capture property-tax increment for streets, utilities, transit, flood/traffic mitigations, structured parking, etc.
  • EIFDs don’t need voter approval to form; bond issuance now uses a protest/hearing process (AB 116 replaced the 55% vote). Great for funding the “horizontal” stuff supporting the stadium. debtguide-api.treasurer.ca.govtrackbill.com

  1. California IBank (State Infrastructure Bank)

  • IBank ISRF loans (often up to ~$65M, 30-year terms) can cheaply finance qualifying public infrastructure/parking/transit elements that benefit the project. ibank.ca.govibank.ca.gov

  1. Marks-Roos pooled bonds via a JPA (if helpful)

  • A JPA may pool and re-lend proceeds to participating public borrowers; no voter approval, but public-benefit findings are required. Useful to aggregate multiple project pieces. Wikipedia

Private/enterprise revenues to de-risk public debt​


  • Naming rights + founding partners (multi-year contracts capitalized upfront).
  • Premiums: suites, loge boxes, clubs, seat licenses (PSLs), priority parking.
  • Event income: concerts, soccer, high-school/JC championships, commencements.
  • Concessions/merch/parking: share of gross with the operator.
    These can back JPA/authority bonds or support CSU SRB pledges (subject to CSU policy). (General context on revenue/authority bonds.) Investopedia

Example capital stack (illustrative only)​


  • $650M stadium (hard/soft costs, contingency; your actual number will vary).
    • 40% JPA lease-revenue bonds backed by stadium net revenues & CSU lease = $260M. ttc.lacounty.gov
    • 25% CSU SRB for CSU-programmed facilities = $162.5M. Cal State University
    • 15% Philanthropy + naming + PSL upfronts = $97.5M.
    • 10% IBank ISRF loan for structured parking/transit = $65M. ibank.ca.gov
    • 10% State/CSU cash & grants (e.g., energy/water/transit grants).
  • $250M off-site & enabling infrastructure (roads, utilities, parking, flood/traffic)

This mix keeps the “pure stadium” debt service off the general fund, uses state tools for state-use spaces, and pushes infrastructure to EIFD/IBank where it belongs.


Revenue design to support debt​


  • Anchor leases: CSU (football + campus events), Cal Expo (State Fair concerts/uses), third-party promoter minimums.
  • Premiums: ~2,000–3,000 club/loge/suite seats + 60–100 suites; blended annual license revenue can underwrite a large slice of bonds.
  • Naming/founders: 10–20-year deals; capitalize a portion upfront, amortize the rest to stabilize DSCR.
  • PSLs: limited, targeted to sideline/lower bowl to avoid fan blowback.
  • Non-football calendar: 20–30 nights (concerts, soccer friendlies, HS/JC championships, graduations) for diversification.
  • Parking & district revenue sharing: if EIFD helps fund structured parking, carve out a revenue-share to support O&M and debt.

Why this is workable (in California)​


 

Sacramento State – Cal Expo Stadium Project Plan​


1. Executive Summary​


Sacramento State and Cal Expo propose to partner on a new 30–35k capacity multi-use stadium at the Cal Expo grounds, modeled after San Diego State’s Snapdragon Stadium. The project will be financed through a combination of CSU systemwide revenue bonds, philanthropy, corporate sponsorships, naming rights, and PSLs/premium seating revenues, without requiring city or county general obligation funds. The stadium will serve as home to Sacramento State football and host year-round sports, entertainment, and community events.



2. Governance & Structure​


  • Ground Lessor: Cal Expo (California Exposition & State Fair).
  • Lessee / Developer: Sacramento State–Cal Expo Stadium Development LLC (auxiliary/foundation controlled).
  • Project Company (StadiumCo): Responsible for design, construction, O&M, and revenue operations.
  • University/CSU Board of Trustees: Sponsor for CSU bond financing and approvals.
  • Oversight Committee: Cal Expo, Sac State, and CSU Chancellor’s Office representatives.


3. Financing Framework​


Target Budget (2025$): $380–$460M


Sources of Funds​


  • CSU Systemwide Revenue Bonds: $220–$270M
  • Philanthropy & Gifts: $60–$90M
  • Stadium Naming Rights: $50–$70M (15–20 years)
  • PSLs & Premium Seating: $25–$45M
  • Corporate Sponsorships: $10–$20M
  • Ancillary Development Ground Lease: $10–$25M

Uses of Funds​


  • Stadium Design & Construction
  • Site/utility improvements & traffic circulation
  • Premium & sponsorship fit-outs
  • Soft costs, CEQA/EIR, legal, and issuance
  • Contingency (10–15%)


4. Revenue Model​


  • Football: 6–7 home games annually.
  • Premium Products: 20–30 suites, 300–1,000 club/loge seats.
  • Other Sports: Soccer, rugby, HS championships.
  • Entertainment: 8–12 concerts/festivals per year.
  • Non-Game Events: Graduations, corporate events.
  • Sponsorships: Stadium/field/clubs, pour rights, plazas.
  • Parking/Transit: Revenue-share with Cal Expo; light rail integration.


5. Entitlement & Legal Pathway​


  • Cal Expo Ground Lease: Long-term lease (55–66 years), DGS approval.
  • Fair-Time Priority: Operating plan for State Fair periods.
  • CEQA/EIR: Comprehensive environmental review, led jointly by Cal Expo/CSU.
  • Mitigation Measures: Event caps, transit incentives, sound monitoring.
  • CSU Trustees Approvals: CEQA certification, schematic design, capital outlay, financing resolution.


6. Design Program​


  • Capacity: 30–35k, expandable to ~40k.
  • Configuration: Horseshoe seating, shaded areas for summer heat.
  • Premium: Founders club, loge boxes, suites, party decks.
  • Community Integration: East plaza connected to Cal Expo midway.
  • Sustainability: PV-ready canopy, water reuse, all-electric kitchens.


7. Project Phasing​


  • Phase 0 (0–4 months): Framework MOU (Cal Expo + CSU); feasibility & donor quiet phase.
  • Phase 1 (4–18 months): CEQA/EIR; CSU Trustees schematic & financing approvals.
  • Phase 2 (8–22 months): Naming rights, PSL/pre-sales, philanthropy campaign.
  • Phase 3 (16–26 months): Architect & design-builder procurement; ground lease finalization.
  • Phase 4 (26–50 months): Construction.
  • Phase 5 (50–54 months): Commissioning, soft opens, inaugural season.

Target Opening: 2029 season.



8. Fundraising Strategy​


  • Naming Rights: Target healthcare, fintech, insurance, and tech companies ($50–$70M).
  • Philanthropy: Lead gifts ($5–$20M) for naming of field, locker rooms, training center.
  • PSLs: Founders program, lifetime benefits, flexible payment plans.
  • Sponsorships: Banking, beverage, energy, telco category exclusives.


9. Risk Management​


  • CEQA delays: Early scoping and robust traffic/noise mitigations.
  • Fair-time conflicts: Contractual blackout periods, reversible wayfinding.
  • Revenue vs. Debt Service: Pre-sales thresholds and auxiliary backstops.
  • Inflation: GMP contracts and early material procurement.
  • Political Optics: Emphasize no city/county G.O. funds; highlight jobs and student benefits.


10. Community Benefits​


  • Local hiring and trade apprenticeships.
  • Student internships in stadium operations and sports business.
  • Open community events and youth sports programs.
  • Transit-integrated access and neighborhood mitigation.


11. Next 90 Days – Action Checklist​


  1. Approve Framework MOU at Aug. 28, 2025 Cal Expo meeting.
  2. Engage CSU Chancellor’s Office to map Trustees’ approvals.
  3. Hire Owner’s Rep and CEQA consultant team.
  4. Commission market study (naming, PSLs, suites).
  5. Launch donor quiet phase with leadership gift outreach.
  6. Draft lease/O&M term sheets with Cal Expo.
  7. Prequalify Architect & Design-Builder.
  8. Begin community & neighborhood stakeholder briefings.


12. Success Benchmarks​


  • 2025: MOU executed.
  • 2026: CSU approvals + CEQA certified.
  • 2027: Financing closed, construction start.
  • 2029: Stadium grand opening, Sac State home opener.
  • 2030+: 8–12 non-football events annually; DSCR ≥ 1.25x.
 
A desperate time for two entities calls for desperate measures.

"Absent some infusion of outside state funds, Cal Expo must either self-finance any redevelopment or partner with the private sector. There have been various ideas for new land uses at Cal Expo over the years, such as a movie studio. Absent a way to use the grandstand for other events, Cal Expo is staring at a huge undertaking requiring some very deep pockets.

The death of one idea — a homeless shelter championed in 2023 by Gov. Gavin Newsom — illustrates the inertia that Cal Expo is up against. Not even a governor could change the footprint at Cal Expo. His idea was opposed by Sacramento County supervisors, leading to a political gridlock. Insular governance structures are always problematic. They’re even more so when the governance faces a huge undertaking that is best resolved through partnerships with the city and county along with investors in the private sector. This cherished institution feels dangerously close to the edge.

Moving the fair to the scorching Sacramento month of July fits with all the other county fair calendars, but it has sentenced all fairgoers to sweating it out on the asphalt. Last year, by almost a miracle, attendance was up 10% despite 11 days of three-digit temperatures. Although the fair announced it would search for a different month for the festivities, no decision has been made. And now the primary uses for the grandstand are gone. To save itself, Cal Expo is going to have to think big."

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article305251846.html#storylink=cpy
 
the Rat said:
A desperate time for two entities calls for desperate measures.

"Absent some infusion of outside state funds, Cal Expo must either self-finance any redevelopment or partner with the private sector. There have been various ideas for new land uses at Cal Expo over the years, such as a movie studio. Absent a way to use the grandstand for other events, Cal Expo is staring at a huge undertaking requiring some very deep pockets.

The death of one idea — a homeless shelter championed in 2023 by Gov. Gavin Newsom — illustrates the inertia that Cal Expo is up against. Not even a governor could change the footprint at Cal Expo. His idea was opposed by Sacramento County supervisors, leading to a political gridlock. Insular governance structures are always problematic. They’re even more so when the governance faces a huge undertaking that is best resolved through partnerships with the city and county along with investors in the private sector. This cherished institution feels dangerously close to the edge.

Moving the fair to the scorching Sacramento month of July fits with all the other county fair calendars, but it has sentenced all fairgoers to sweating it out on the asphalt. Last year, by almost a miracle, attendance was up 10% despite 11 days of three-digit temperatures. Although the fair announced it would search for a different month for the festivities, no decision has been made. And now the primary uses for the grandstand are gone. To save itself, Cal Expo is going to have to think big."

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article305251846.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

Everything I hear is that it's CalExpo time, 100%. But then again Dr. Wood told me to my face that there would be a SAC to PAC-12 announcement within a week and half last October. Ugh.
 
Kadeezy said:
Everything I hear is that it's CalExpo time, 100%.
Click to expand...
So this would be a situation in which Sac State would be leasing the land, and CSU would be helping to fund a new stadium.

Sac State would not own the stadium? Cal Expo owns the land.....and CSUS would jointly own the stadium with Cal Expo, or not at all?

I'm still not clear on the whole thing....and I haven't done all the required reading either.
 
OldSchoolHornet said:
The Cal Expo option has been in the works for months and is the most likely scenario at this point.
Click to expand...
Yes.. appears so. Great news as huge bonus if Cal Expo has a capital budget to contribute to building a 30-40K LUXE Hornet Stadium!
The Stadium needs to be property of Sac State as its revenue stream needs to come into the football program. We can’t lose this stadium naming rights, advertising, concession revenues.
We are in great position because Cal Expo needs us more than we need them. SAC REP dropped them and No Horse Racing combination.
 
I think it’s an option but not preferred. If they upgrade the trail with new lighting and signage, and add a bridge directly to stadium, could be part of a new tradition, “the walk.”

But a huge letdown for creating an on campus tradition to elevate the campus experience, get alumni back to campus, etc.

I think hosting regional track events is fine, Oregon built the nicest track stadium the country will ever see, but they have had a lot of empty seats. Track is great for large meets with a ton of participants that take up hotel rooms by themselves. But anything more than what USC or Stanford track stadium seems a bit much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top