American Times Make No Sense??

Lease Limits PawSox To Only 18 Million In Cost Overruns

For years, we have been worried about the costs skyrocketing and the revenues plummeting since the release of the first proforma.     Many people have responded by saying that us taxpayers need not be concerned  about overruns, since the baseball team will cover all of them.  

 

This week we noticed something we had never seen before.   Looking at the bottom    Exhibit F.

                                Remaining to $18 million cap:            $695,207

 

What is this???  

 

Now look at the lease and 

  • Go to page 21 of the lease, section 4.5(b). It outlines who is responsible for cost overruns. The important sentence begins with "Notwithstanding ... exceeds $18,000,000, the parties will work cooperatively to find alternative funding sources." 
  • This says to us that the City may have to renegotiate with the Team if cost overruns exceed $18,000,000. Exhibit F states the cost overruns are currently $17,304,793 (as of 1/8/21) so the likelihood of there being cost overruns over $18,000,000 are probably high.


Remember this stadium started out at $100,000,000.     City of Worcester then had to pay $20,600,000 in additional site acquisitions, when we got hit with the first $30,000,000 cost overrun.     

Now the stadium costs are at $157,000,000, an increase of $57,0000.    Many people think the PawSox have paid all the cost overrun costs other then the $20,600,000 in site acquisition.  Now we find out there is an $18,000,000 cap???   



Going Forward

There is an 18 million cap to the PawSox for cost overruns and there is only $695,207 in cost overruns remaining that is the responsibility of the team. 

Lets hope there are no more overruns!!!




 


Comments

Anonymous said…
Are you the only one who has read the lease ?
Can you have the cartoonist add the name WooSox to the jersey because it appears we are carrying them as well.
Anonymous said…
If we can't believe the City when they say the WooSox are paying for all the over runs, you have to ask if we need to question them when they say the ballpark won't cost the taxpayers.
Worc_bill said…
Simply assign the overruns to the Federal account that doles out money to solve the Corona crisis. Must be a clause in there that will eat that and ask for more!
Anonymous said…
Someone needs to audit Exhibit F
Anonymous said…
What is Grand Bargain 2.0. ?
Anonymous said…
Don’t worry. The city will just distract taxpayers with the dual tax rate and claim that “ the other guy” will have his taxes raised to pay for this.
Anonymous said…
Groundhog Day.
When will the City Council wake up and do their jobs and stop sticking it to us.
I am not looking forward to next years "Christmas" card from the City after seeing this years.
I can only hope some people run this year because this do nothing City Council will give the same old same old speechs that they did this year as they decide how deep they are going to stick their hands into our pocket.
I love my house, I just wish I could move it to Auburn!
Anonymous said…
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2021/01/25/17063/worlds-most-expensive-minor-league-stadium-may-cost-worcester-taxpayers-150m-now-who-can-even-keep-track/
Anonymous said…
Does this project feel like Chinese water torture. An endless stream of slow financial misinformation (or no information) dripping out from the City. This project is going to make my head explode. Has the City ever issued a comprehensive analysis on this project?
Anonymous said…
Even the giant TIFS that the city gave the developer to avoid the larcenous dual tax rate did not get the market rate developments that are needed to pay for the ballpark.

Instead we are getting more subsidized low income housing.And that is on top of the low income subsidized housing at the old courthouse apartments

What planning!
Anonymous said…
A 57% cost over run! If that happen where I work heads would roll!
Bill Randell said…
Costs up $57 million and the PawSox is limited to $18 million so a net increase to the taxpayer of $39 million and it is still revenue neutral???