McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: Andrew Salimian
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2022 1:07 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cc: Sue Mossman; Susan Mossman
Subject: RBOC 5-Year Strategic Initiatives
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Thank you again for taking time to discuss the Rose Bowl, an important asset and community treasure in Pasadena. I would like to reshare Pasadena Heritage's comments from the last hearing, copied below. We thank you for your dedication to the Rose Bowl.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As you consider options to improve the economic viability of the Rose Bowl in the future, please give utmost consideration to the fact that the Rose Bowl is a National Historic Landmark and that the Central Arroyo, including the Rose Bowl, surrounding area, and Brookside Golf Course are listed together as a National Register Historic District.
We are particularly concerned about the option of changing the seating at the south end of the Stadium as that would certainly be a significant alteration to the landmark stadium. What other possibilities have been considered? Reworking a portion of the original golf course for a family golf center is probably achievable with mitigation. Reworking the Brookside Golf Club, or constructing a new structure there that is more attractive and has more amenities is also an option that would not impact the historic resources in the area as much, would seem to have good revenue-generating potential and would be much less costly.
In general, any possible change to the Rose Bowl or the Golf Course or other historic areas or features should be carefully evaluated in terms not only of their income-generating potential but also as to the impact on these valuable historic resources. We have asked that an historic preservation consultant be part of the team proposing and reviewing these strategies so that you would have the benefit of that analysis.
If that has not yet happened, we urge you to ask the Rose Bowl leadership to have that evaluation done as soon as possible so we can all use that information as part of a comparison of options and their pros and cons.
Thank you for hearing our concerns and for protecting this crucial Pasadena treasure.
Andrew Salimian
Preservation Director
O: (626) 441-6333 x119
C: (516) 662-6425
[email protected]
CORONAVIRUS POLICY: Out of an abundance of caution, Pasadena Heritage staff may be working from home. I still have access to email, but you can additionally be reached on my personal cell.
PASADENA
HERITAGE 08/1/2022
PRESERVATION | ADVOCACY | EDUCATION
Item 19
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: Jon Fuhrman
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2022 1:04 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: Rose Bowl Funding options -- Agenda Item 19
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.
Re: Public comment on financing options for the Rose Bowl - Pasadena Municipal Code Section 4.48.040 Dear Councilmembers:
Now that the Council is considering possible solutions to the impending financial shortfalls of the Rose Bowl, I would like once again to direct your attention to our Municipal Code Section 4.48.040.
That section essentially establishes a 5% admission tax for Rose Bowl events. However, it places a cap of $0.50 on that tax.
We have adjusted the cap on that tax for inflation, so the cap is now about $1.90. However, that means that for a $300 Rose Bowl ticket, which I understand to be a typical price for the cheapest seats, the aggregate tax is $1.90, instead of the $15 that would be generated by a flat 5% tax, which is entirely in line with admission taxes levied by other localities.
Thus, for every Rose Bowl game, that cap on the admission tax is costing us at least $1 million in lost revenue. If you include the routine season games, we're losing at least $2 million a year in potential revenue due to that irrational cap on the admission tax. Adding in additional events, like the soccer game of last weekend, would likely generate close to $3 million annually in additional revenue.
I urge you to consider eliminating the cap on the Rose Bowl Admission Tax, even if that move would require a ballot initiative. One of the key points is that the Admission Tax is paid by attendees at the Rose Bowl - by the users of the facility, rather than by Pasadena taxpayers as a whole, and the facility users are exactly the population that should be shouldering a larger share of the burden for supporting the Rose Bowl.
I understand that RBOC officials argue that teams currently contribute a capital facilities maintenance fee, which was supposedly designed to substitute for a larger admissions tax. There is no reason why the teams should not continue to pay this maintenance fee even as we remove the cap on the admissions tax.
Removing the cap on the admissions tax is one of the only ways to increase revenue that is not entirely speculative and could be implemented essentially immediately. Now that we are finally facing the oncoming fiscal abyss head-on, there seems no valid excuse for not including the repeal of the admissions tax cap as one of the options we should exercise.
Jonathan Fuhrman
08/1/2022
1 Item 19
Topic Pasadena Center Operating Rose Bowl Operating Company Company
1. Legal Structure Nonprofit public benefit Nonprofit public benefit corporation corporation
RBOC income excludible under Section
Operate Convention & Visitors 115(1) of the Internal Revenue Code Bureau program through levies for and contributions to the RBOC are Pasadena Tourism Improvement deductible under Section 170 of the District (a tourism business Code
improvement district)
Section 28 - A 501(c)(3) foundation may
be established for charitable purposes
Amendment 2 - Consent of use of "The
Rose Bowl Foundation" for
incorporation of the Foundation
2. Facilities Civic Auditorium, conference Rose Bowl Stadium, adjoining parking building, exhibit hall and all other areas B, D, F, K, L and M and the structures excluding the hotel Brookside Golf Course and Clubhouse Director of PRCS has discretion but
shall make available Areas H, I, J and
the Brookside Park Softball Diamonds 2
and 3 in support of events
3. Contracts Section 2 - Contracts entered into Section 3.2 - Contracts entered into on in the name of City behalf of the City
Section 4(p)(4) - Contracts must May procure materials, services, public comply with Charter and Municipal utilities, supplies and equipment Code reasonably necessary
Section 3.4.5 - Contracts must comply
with Charter and Municipal Code
4. Responsibilities Section 3- Manage all facilities Return economic and civic value to the for the public purposes in which City of Pasadena.
they were built
Act as a liaison to the residents
Operate the parking garage and concerning the impact of stadium retain all revenue after expenses operations
Maintain all facilities in good repair Section 5.4 - RBOC with control to and working order manage operations in its sole discretion Perform all custodial and janitorial
service
5. Staffing PCOC to prepare an Operating RBOC shall have in place as of July 1, 1996 its own personnel and staffing
structure
existing Policy and Procedure ROC may employ or contract for Manual, with a copy provided to employees, legal counsel, consultants, the City accountants or other employees or
contractors as necessary
PCOC may employ or contract for
employees, legal counsel,
consultants, accountants or other
employees or contractors as
necessary
Section 4(g) - All salaries, fees,
wages and compensation shall be
reasonable
6. Joint Meeting Annual joint PCOC/City joint Section 7.3.9 - Annual RBOC/City joint neeting required to discuss goal meeting (January or February) required and objectives, annual repor to discuss regarding goals with specific including financial and building measurement indicators, financial report 1 utilization, marketing plan, and and details utilization by type of five-year capital improvement function, marketing plans for the RBOC program area with specific performance goals
and objectives
7. License PCOC may license, use or permit RBOC may license, use or permit the the use of all or any parts of the use of all or any parts of the facilities
8. Indebtedness Section 4 - May not incur May not incur any indebtedness for any indebtedness without prior purpose which is secured by the approval of the City Council revenues from activities within the RBOC Area
City shall not incur indebtedness based
upon pledge of revenue generated by
the RBOC
9. Fees Section 5(a) - Compile a schedule Section 8.1 - Compile a schedule of of maximum and minimum rental maximum and minimum rental fees, fees, filed with the City for its adopted by resolution per Pasadena pproval; exceptions to tr Municipal Code Section 3.32;
chedule may be made if it offe exceptions to the schedule may be a significant marketing advantage made if it offers a significant marketing and likely to produce a positive advantage and likely to produce a economic impac positive economic impact
10. Policies Section 5(b) - Maintain operatin
policies and procedures, submit
as an informational item to the
City, and modify at the request of
11. Financial Section 6 - PCOC is responsible RBOC shall have its own accounting or accounting; financial audit to systems
cur within 90 days following th
end of the fiscal year Section 11.0 - Submit annual financial statement to the City and pay to the City
Section 7 - Submit annual portion of net revenue, if any financial statement to the City and
pay net revenue, if any
City to provide funding for PCOC
by making Transient Occupancy
Tax available
City to provide bond financing
12. Insurance PCOC shall maintain on its own or RBOC shall procure and maintain public liability, property, earthquake, directors
and officers, workers' compensation,
riot and civil commotion insurance and
surety bonds
Insurance must meet the requirements
of August 1, 1990 Facility Lease
13. Naming Rights PCOC may not sell naming rights Section 29 - RBOC has the right to offer or other advertising revenue naming recognition for stadium features without prior City Council approval
14. Legislation City will not adopt any ordinance.
resolution, etc. ordering or affecting
RBOC area without first submitting to
ROC for report and recommendation
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: carl selkin
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2022 3:52 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: RBOC item 19
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...
The needs of the residents of Pasadena need to take precedence as the City Council weighs options for the Rose Bowl operations. The fact is that as the Rose Bowl Operations eat away at the funds that our city needs for housing, especially the notoriously under-resourced need for affordable housing, the costs of the Rose Bowl are increasingly born by the workforce on which our city depends, workers who are forced out of housing or prevented from obtaining housing because of increasing rents as a result of housing scarcity. These residents are forced into longer and longer commutes until it no longer makes sense for them to work in Pasadena. The collapse in available labor is seen in the struggles of local business to find employees, especially at the lower wage levels.
Historic preservation is a valuable concept, but the costs of preservation should not be borne by those in the lower economic echelons. Family golfing centers are nice —but how many people would utilize such a center and where is the cost-benefit analysis that includes the impacts on the entire city and all residents, few of whom would benefit from such a project.
Rose Bowl beneficiaries-hotels, ticket buyers, leasers and tenants-need to support the venue and generate excess revenue for Pasadena's needs. We shouldn't be sinking more money to rescue a failed enterprise just because so much has already been sunk in it.
John Fuhrman and Sonja Berndt make valuable suggestions. But they remain inadequate to float the Rose Bowl to solvency.
Sent from Mail for Windows
08/1/2022
Item 19