Monday, March 22, 2010

SB 6889 Convention Center bill passes House with minor amendment

SB 6889 passed the House floor today. It included a minor amendment identifying funds the state is keeping in the general fund prior to the tax transfer to the new Public Facilities District.
The amendment needs to be approved by the Senate floor, and the final bill passed. A final vote could come as soon as Tuesday.

This is the same tax that the City of Seattle lobbied the state for a portion of, 1% of the 7 levied in Seattle. That effort failed with the legislature, though the convention center did look favorably on the potential application of the funds, KeyArena.

10 comments:

Peter said...

will this bill potentially get money for keyarena if we can't find anyone to partner with for an new arena? we can talk about an new arena all we want,and even if we do get athlete taxes, if ballmer is fixated on keyarena, that's what we're gonna get. that response someone posted on SC from sally bagshaw makes me wonder if ballmer is still in at all, or if the new city administration is refusing to partner with him anymore. i thought bagshaw was the one who made that video in support of bringing a team back to keyarena. only time will tell. it seems like if these bills really make something possible for an arena, the media would cover it. i don't even know what to think.

Peter said...

that response from bagshaw on SC also makes me wonder if the county comes through on keyarena, the city will go back on their ticket taxes offer.

Mr Baker said...

They will not respond while the legislation is still open. After that they are obligated to appoint 3 members to the new pfd. They will start thinking about this 90 days after the legislation has been signed (that is when it goes into effect).

They are not going to admit that KeyArena is a drag, that is bad for business.

Peter said...

would getting an athlete tax to pay for an brand new arena require going back next year? my only concern w/ that is by the time an new arena was approved, most of the NBA teams with issues could move to other cities or get their issues figured out. if there won't be any teams left to buy by the time an new arena would be approved, maybe it is better to go with the key redo. on another note, i found it curious that bagshaw replied in her letter that the NHL is even possible at KeyArena. c'mon, everybody knows the footprint is just too small for the NHL, don't they? the city is clueless imo. the only solution that will come in my book is a county one.

Mr Baker said...

Bagshaw knows the ice is too small. Jp asked about rebuilding for both the NBA and NHL.

The position of the city has not changed because the facts have not changed.

I do not see the NBA running out if teams to sell over the next couple years.

I think, my opinion, that an athlete tax would allow the county the funds to build a new arena in Seattle, no matter what the city's position.

Peter said...

"I think, my opinion, that an athlete tax would allow the county the funds to build a new arena in Seattle, no matter what the city's position."

if there is an athlete tax, what is the liklihood an new arena will go up in the suburbs? it seems like if the city would object to an competing arena going up in seattle and try to stop it, building in the suburbs would seem like the best solution. if there is a stand alone athlete tax bill next session to fund stadiums and arenas for the PFD, would it get enough support on its own to pass, or would we need to tie it in to another more important bill?

Peter said...

"I do not see the NBA running out if teams to sell over the next couple years."

if we are looking at another 1 or 2years before an brand new arena is approved, then we could definitly get an new team. but if getting an new arena is gonna take 4 or 5 years, than a key redo might be the best solution. that was my point. sort of beat everybody to the next available team. on another note, you would think that if the law saying they couldn't spend the hotel tax conv center money for stadiums was repealed, and no other restrictive language was in that repeal, the hotel/convention center people must be OK with using the tax after the conv center is paid off, right? if they didn't want their money being spent on sports, and they had alot of leverage, they would lobby to keep that law, or at least restrict using the money on maintaining safeco and qwest,right? in other words, as long as they get their convention center, they would be ok with using the money after it is paid off for an arena.

Anonymous said...

Is Sen Murray still planning on ressurecting the "arena bill" as well?

Mr Baker said...

I don't know what Mr. Murray is planning, I do know that the county is still interested in getting a bill through.

Mr Baker said...

Legislature has been out for two days while negotiations over the budget are going on.

Blog Feeds