So this deal is still dead and I think that the expectation is that if it gets revived it will be because the new Mayor will work at reviving it. No idea if it is even possible at this point, but that is where we are. In the meantime, we have Rep. Charles Potter putting out a piece of propaganda that specifically misrepresents the terms of this dead deal — I guess so that he can make himself look like a hero or something for standing up to the big bad Sallies and their desire to make Bayard Stadium into a working home field for everybody. He counts, of course, on the fact that no one will spend any time on that document and just get fired up because he says to. I did look at that contract and here is the response to the propaganda with references to the page numbers where I found this info. The items in BOLD are the ones listed on the “Highlights of the major points of the contract with Sallies” that he has posted to Facebook. My responses and references follow.
100 year lease term (unprecedented!)
It is a 50 year plus 50 year option. Still, it was worth asking Sallies and the City why they felt the lease needed to be this long and ask for adjustments if necessary.
Option to purchase
This is on page 22. There is an option to purchase *only if* the City decides to sell the facility or if they want to transfer it to another non-profit. If the City holds it for the next 50 or 100 years, there’s no option for Sallies to buy.
5 years to raise funds
They had until June 30, 2017 to raise the funds. And if they didn’t then the deal could be called off (see page 2 of the lease.) They had 5 years to finish the contemplated improvements (see end of page 1). The list of contemplated improvements starts on page 2, item 1 (h).
TENANT has sole right to terminate if funding requirement is not met
They could terminate if they did not raise the required funds by June 30, 2017. What purpose would it serve for them to be on the hook if they can’t raise the money? The City *should* take it back at that point and figure out a plan from there.
No penalty for non-performance (funding/construction)
The penalty for non-performance on funding was losing the lease June 30. Not completing identified construction improvements in 5 years would have placed Sallies in default with the city and that could have triggered termination of the agreement. (section 14, starting page 19)
Control of management and maintenance of the property
The lease specifically called for Sallies to manage and maintain the property. Most leases for a space will tell you your responsibilities for care and maintenance of said space – whether your landlord provides management and/or maintenance or you do. It seems to me that since the City hasn’t been doing such a great job in managing and maintaining this facility, why wouldn’t you let Sallies do it? But that was part of the lease terms – Sallies leases the space and in return they would provide the funds to invest in it and take over maintenance and management. A job the City hasn’t been doing well for some time now.
Control of stadium usage by pre-existing users and other parties
Pre-existing users are defined on page 5 (and it is a long list of schools and community groups), Page 8 details the terms and basically, these groups would have been able to use the facility under the same terms they have now. Changes to the user agreements required approval by City’s Parks and Rec Department. The City of Wilmington was listed as a user — which would have been an umbrella to expand community usage of the facility. But the current list of grandfathered groups is about 16 — how many groups are going to get organized activity done within their seasons? This is what management and maintenance means. And I am going to ask – why is there all of this concern *now* for this facility’s availability to other groups? Because from where I sit, this facility is close to overbooked already — we should be talking about creating one or two new stadium facilities in the city.
No governing board/mechanism for a voice for the community
There’s no governing board now and nor was there one when the Representative was on Council. Nor has there been any outcry or focus on getting this facility in better working order until Sallies stepped up. There *was* however, a commitment by Sallies that “Tenant shall endeavor to engage other community and local groups who may be interested in utilizing the leased premises and Tenant shall develop criteria that will allow such groups to have reasonable access and use to the leased premises.” (Page 15 at the bottom.) The city still had to approve usage fees and agreements.
Salesianum sets price for users of the facility
Current usage fees were grandfathered in, but Sallies could change that with the approval of the City. But let’s be really clear here — the current facility spends about $160K for maintenance and it takes in about $60K. Not sure if that includes the amounts in arrears for some groups. (see page 8) Fees are going up no matter who runs it.
Right to sublet to groups affiliated with St. Francis de Salles
This is assignment or sublet – this is largely a succession clause if Salesianum is bought, sold or goes under. The City’s deal does not change when this happens. (page 15)
Right to subdivide Baynard all the way to Brandywine Park
If they should be in a position to exercise an option to buy the property, it is up to Sallies to get an ironclad subdivision from Brandywine Park — if it is necessary. This stadium (or some portion of the property) is currently a part of Brandywine Park, which is a state park. If they need to get a subdivision from the park as part of establishing ownership, they have to get that. They don’t get rights to subdivide Baynard as part of this lease. (Page 23)
Right to mortgage the leased facility to get funding
The would have had the right to mortgage their *interest* in the stadium, not the actual stadium or other property. This is called a Leasehold Mortgage and is a relatively common way for someone with a long-term lease on a property to get a line of financing. The City is still the owner, still the landlord. The risk here is mainly to Sallies – if they are somehow in default, the mortgager can obtain Sallies’ lease and would be obligated to the terms of the lease. See Section 11, page 16.
Exclusive naming rights for the street and the stadium
They could rename Stadium Drive only. They could rename the stadium as long as the field is called Samuel Baynard Field or Baynard Field – so that a new stadium would have the name of John Doe Stadium at Baynard Field. Baynard was always going to be a part of the name and the signage. (page 23)
Ability to generate revenues (pay no tax or utilities – water, sewer, electricity)
They would have to pay taxes, except it is agreed that they are probably exempt from real estate taxes, like the City is. The City would pay utilities, which they do now. How many of us have leased an apartment or home with utilities included? (page 11)
All revenues go to Salesianum (no revenue sharing)
They can sell ads and sponsorships, but they would have still been responsible for paying the City rent and for maintaining the field and facilities. If they had the bulk of the expenses, why would there be revenue sharing? Unlike Porky Oliver’s golf course, this is not being run for profit.
Council forfeits authority in several sections “… approval is hereby authorized and no further action by City Council shall be required.”
The City controls what it needs to in order to maintain its ownership of this facility and property, to make sure there is recourse for defaults, to make sure it is insured against the actions of Sallies and its contractors. City Council would be out of the loop for approving any tennis court construction that the State may want to build there (page 9); they would be out of the loop for re-naming Stadium Drive if it happens (page 23)
General public can only use ‘track’ and ingress/egress paths to the track.
Which is the current use of the stadium now, yes?
Again, this isn’t to say that any of this couldn’t be changed or tweaked in an honest negotiation. But you also can’t take a document that exists in public and misrepresent it in order to try to convince people that your work to kill it was justified. And I should say that I could be wrong on some of the details here — but I am pretty confident that I’ve at least tried to read this document honestly.
Last night, though, we found out that Councilman Chukwuocha did not have the authority to create a Task Force to study options for improving this facility. He has to wait for the President of the City Council or for the Mayor to do that. So not only did we turn away an excellent option for improving Baynard Stadium, but Plan B isn’t an option yet, either.
And then there’s this:
Potter said he will speak with his colleagues in Dover to facilitate the task force, but he didn’t know where the money for stadium renovations could come from.
Accountability, indeed.