PawSox campaign yields early responses from state, city officials

AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE proposed Pawtucket Red Sox stadium for downtown Providence at night. / COURTESY PAWTUCKET RED SOX
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE proposed Pawtucket Red Sox stadium for downtown Providence at night. / COURTESY PAWTUCKET RED SOX

PROVIDENCE – Pawtucket Red Sox president James J. Skeffington spent the last few days making the political rounds, visiting city and state leadership to lay out the details of his plan to build a new ballpark in downtown Providence.

So it’s no wonder the responses came quickly on Wednesday after Skeffington proposed the plan publicly, offering to invest $85 million into the project if the state would put up $4 million a year and the city would exempt the ballpark from paying real estate taxes – each for 30 years.

Gov. Gina M. Raimondo in statement called the proposal “exciting,” adding that it’s her goal to keep the Boston Red Sox AAA affiliate in Rhode Island, but stopped short of endorsing the proposal.

“My top priority is getting Rhode Islanders back to work, and we have very limited resources to invest in economic growth – especially in the face of a large structural deficit,” Raimondo said. “I am committed to working with Mayor [Jorge O.] Elorza, the [R.I. House] speaker and the [R.I.] senate president to evaluate whether this project is in the best interest of Rhode Island, and whether we can afford it.”

- Advertisement -

And it does come with a cost, but in an unusual way.

The ownership group, led by Skeffington and Red Sox President Larry Lucchino, are proposing that once construction is completed, the group would lease the stadium to the state for $5 million a year for 30 years, which would require legislative approval.

The state would – in turn – sublease the stadium back to the ball team for $1 million per year. The state’s spending would net to $4 million a year for 30 years with three subsequent 10-year options to follow.

Skeffington, however, predicts that state’s yearly costs could be cut in half, based on a commissioned economic study of the ballpark. The study projects the state could pull in about $2 million annually in recurring tax revenue, including sales, food and beverage and hotel, based on the projection that $12.3 million would be spent at the ballpark yearly.

If the numbers seem low, it’s because the consulting firm, B&D Venues, doesn’t include indirect, induced economic or fiscal benefits – popularly referred to as “multipliers” – for any of its projections, which came at the request of the ownership group.

The consultants based its projections on 72 baseball games, excluding all the proposed secondary activities for the ballpark, which includes NCAA sports, concerts and events.

The study projects the city could receive about $170,000 yearly on its shared-tax revenue with the state. The ownership group is asking Providence to enter into a 30-year tax treaty that would make the ballpark exempt from city real estate taxes.

Elorza and City Council president Luis A. Aponte released parameters to how they would apply framework to “guide a collaborative, transparent review” of the proposal. And beyond assurances that they would collaborate and work together with their colleagues in state leadership, the mayor and council president’s responses sounded optimistic about the idea.

“The stadium has the potential to be catalytic and transformative in the way residents and visitors experience downtown Providence. With the promise of drawing hundreds of thousands of spectators annually to the city, the stadium could help spur the development of the nearby I-195 parcels and generate additional revenue from the city and the state,” Aponte said in a statement.

Elorza said the team represents “a significant and exciting development opportunity for the city and state.”

The city’s nine-step “framework to guide review” of the proposal includes looking at the use of the park, infrastructural requirements, environmental impact, urban design and integration, multi-use feasibility, public impact, traffic impact, economic impact and cost/benefit analysis.

Skeffington expects the state legislature to make a decision this legislative session and while he denies having a Plan B, if it doesn’t work out in Providence, the new president says there have certainly been “overtures” from other cities, but stopped short of specifics.

The negotiations period will now commence and the ownership group has given the city a bargaining chip, asking City Council to rezone the park land that the stadium is to be built on to permit building of the ballpark.

Currently, according to Skeffington’s plan, the ownership group would need a variance from the city’s Zoning Board, which represents possible and unpredictable delays, but a simple zone change could streamline the process. The land runs through the I-195 Redevelopment District Commission, which is funded by the state, but its regulations are based on city zoning laws.

Stefan Pryor, newly appointed state commerce secretary, said in a statement that he hopes to keep “this treasured team in Rhode Island,” but balks at what’s being asked for.

“The project has the potential to enhance the vitality of a key district within our capital city. At the same time, this proposal involves a significant request for public resources,” Pryor said. “We will review this proposal in order to determine whether it makes financial sense and whether it will help catalyze the I-195 corridor.”

No posts to display

3 COMMENTS

  1. Many questions remain to be answered. What will the cost of each ticket be? What will the cost of parking be? What is the projection of the average attendance at the new stadium? 16 of the 30 teams in Triple-A Baseball drew less than 7,000 fans per game in 2013 and 2014. What will happen if attendance at the new stadium is low? Will the new owners be asking for more state help? The PawSox averaged over 8,400 fans per game for the last 10 years. What will the financial impact on the City of Pawtucket be without the PawSox? Will the state of Rhode Island be obligated to reimburse the City of Pawtucket for this financial loss? Will the increase in traffic in downtown Providence be a problem? Will the increase in carbon emissions in the I-195 redevelopment area become a problem?

  2. I can’t believe that traffic is an issue. What cocoon are you living in. Anytime you have large crowds that leave at the same time there will be traffic congestion. I go to Tanglewood regularly and that place gets congested when 14,00 people leave after a concert. Does that mean they should close up Tangelwood?? Talk about small minded comments.