Husky Stadium

by John Berkowitz on Jan 12, 2009 10:05 AM PST Comment 56 comments

One of the things I shared with you guys before Christmas was that the next big public announcement Husky AD Scott Woodward is likely to make is going to get us all really excited about the future of Husky football.

The announcement will be about the renovation of Husky Stadium and the wheels are starting to turn in that direction which is highlighted in a report in today's edition of the Seattle Times.

The major goal all along has been to get a jump on the project before the Sound Transit Light Rail and SR 520 projects are in full swing. Once those two projects start it is going to be dicey getting a third major project completed in the area at the same time.

The renovation of Husky Stadium could begin immediately after the last game of the upcoming season, Woodward said, and would take about 20 months. That would allow the team to move back into a revamped Husky Stadium in time for the 2011 season.

On the public funding side politicians are working to be able to take the entire state legislature out of the process and delegate the decision to King County. It makes a lot of sense because King County is where the funds are generated.

Meanwhile, the idea of handing the stadium-funding decision to King County revolves around the proposed use of county-specific taxes, such as a hotel-motel tax, to pay for the renovation.

"It seems to me that local decisions should be made locally," said state Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, who co-chairs a legislative committee looking into funding proposals.

"There's a lot of attraction to the idea that these taxes are generated in King County ... and that if they're generated there, you should decide what to do with them," said Marty Brown, the governor's legislative director and a member of Hunter's committee.

The bottom line on all this is the UW is pretty certain they have the private share of the $300 million raised at this point. If they can get their hands on the state contribution construction will be able to start next fall after the football season is completed.

What basically amounts to approval for a new stadium will be one heckuva tool for Steve Sarkisan to use in recruiting the 2010 class which may be one of the better ones we have seen in state over the last ten years.

With the legislative session reconvening today expect things to heat up considerably on this issue over the next 60 days.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

State Decision

I think that it’s wise for them to let the locals decide where local taxes are spent. Husky Stadium generates millions of dollars for local business every year.

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 11:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

105 day session John

The biennial budget writing session.

I like the King County idea as it eliminates most of the objectors from E Washington (coogs) although there are a lot of coogs on the westside too. All they can do is make noise but the King County move also eliminates the “appearance” of State tax dollars being used, which was never really true.

Jack

by T9ODawg on Jan 12, 2009 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

That makes way more sense. So when is the decision on whether or not to move the decision over to King County going to be made?

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What could we get for Naming Rights?

by bigdave967 on Jan 12, 2009 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Naming rights?

$30-$40 million over 25 years is what Minnesota received.

by John Berkowitz on Jan 12, 2009 12:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

DO NOT Sell out!

Is there talk of selling the naming rights of Husky Stadium? This is the first I’ve heard about naming rights of the ole’ gal. It should remain Husky Stadium- it’s part of the tradition, A BIG part. If we decided to name it something like Starbucks Stadium then surely everything is out the freakin’ window, traditional uniforms and all.

Say no to naming rights!

by crazidawg on Jan 13, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on how it’s done. If it’s something like “Microsoft Field at Husky Stadium” I’m OK with that, because we’ll all still refer to it as Husky Stadium and the only time you’d see the corporate name would be on broadcasts. When you’re looking for $300M, you have to consider ALL options…

by kirkd on Jan 13, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly!...

…show me the money!

by doubledeucedawg on Jan 13, 2009 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As much as I would love...

a renovated Husky stadium, I have serious doubts on the funding getting done this year. According to the economic analysis report presented by Husky Athletic program, approxiametly $12.5 million of tax revenue can be directly attiributed to Husky Athletics. Of this amount, $8.2 million goes to the state and $4.3 million goes to King County. Albeit this is a bit of a SWAG, but it would take 13 years before this investment resulted in a net positive investment to the taxpayers of Washington. (Assumptions: 2.3% Interest Rate, 3% Inflation on Tax Receipts compounding and $150 million contribution). Granted, this is not strictly a finance decision and there other financial input factors to consider, but given the current economic, it is very hard to make a convincing financial argument for this funding.

http://www.washington.edu/about/staterel/publications/2008%20documents/HuskyStadiumEconomicImpact.pdf

by Dawg Tracks on Jan 12, 2009 12:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good point, but also consider that Husky Stadium is technically a state-owned facility, so you also have to factor in public safety concerns. If the stadium really has deteriorated to a level that it’s a safety concern, you have to account for the liability concerns that the state could be held to if something happened.

It’s an odd situation – the University and its property are state owned, but they aren’t directly controlled by the state government – it’s done through proxy via the University administration (BoR, President Emmert). The state could legitimately have a major gripe with the University about how their assets have been managed by the University, but the fact of the matter is the people that neglected the stadium (McCormick, Hedges) are gone. So does the state punish Emmert for sins committed by his predecessor(s)?

The other factor in favor of the funding is that it can be touted as an economic boost for the region – lots of money pumped into construction for that project.

The tricky part will be everyone that cries “This money would be better spent on more important things like education and social services, etc!” Explaining to them that this funding source is set by law to be specifically for athletic facilities is probably going to fall on mostly deaf ears, with people saying “Well just change the law then!”

Should be interesting to watch. This will be a big test of Emmert and Woodward’s lobbying abilities.

by kirkd on Jan 12, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree with you. The risk and liability associated with not renovating Husky stadium is a powerful argument that cannot be ignored.

by Dawg Tracks on Jan 12, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not going to get any cheaper...

…and it’s something that has to get done. You can’t allow a public facility that gets 420,000 people a year sitting in a substandard facility. Well I guess you can but the liability issues enter the equation. This is actually a good time to start the construction when you consider the cost will be less because of the recession. It will also ceate jobs and for every year this doesn’t get done, you throw 10 million dollars down the drain in maintenance costs.

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I appreciate you linking the report ...

… however your “13 year” return analysis is not well constructed. First, it implies an association between all of Husky Athletics and the stadium remodel, one that does not exist. Second, it fails to consider the most important aspect of the economic-side of the decision. Husky Stadium is an existing, working asset that has value. The costs of running husky stadium will continue in their current form as long as the asset is viable (these costs include operational, financial and opportunity costs). The “return” calculation should, thus, consider not only incremental revenues as a result of the upgrade investment, but also costs (including opportunity costs) avoided. By the way, a valid opportunity cost for the stadium proposal (meaning, one that can be quantified with good economic analysis) is the competitiveness of the football team.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Jan 12, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew that economics education I got at UW would pay off some day.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Jan 12, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

$10 million a year in maintenance

People assume you can just do nothing and not spend money but the reality is they are going to have to spend $10 million a year just to keep it the way it is and that doesn’t make any fiscal sense.

by John Berkowitz on Jan 12, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, Okay Gekko

I literally did the analysis on my financial calculator in three minutes….so cut me some slack :)

by Dawg Tracks on Jan 12, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You could still be right with your take on this...

…I hope not because it makes zero sense both fiscally and for liability reasons. By deferring to King County where the tax money is collected it takes the monkey off the state legislatures back. Why should/would state lawmakers from other districts have any say so on how King County Taxes are spent?

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I never really understood why the State Legislature needed to approve this tax anyway, since it’s only collected in King County.

by kirkd on Jan 12, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Those WSU yahoos are idiots for objecting...

… if they force this to county lawmakers, you can forget anyone ever investing public dollars in any WSU capital projects. WSU fans ought to be fully supporting state funding so that they have a leg to stand on when they want their own facilities improved.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Jan 13, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No kidding. How many years would it take for Whitman County to generate tourist taxes that would amount to enough to do anything at WSU? 1,000?

by kirkd on Jan 13, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Who paid for their basketball arena?...

…and who has subsidized wsu sports for years? You got it!…the Washington State Taxpayer!

by doubledeucedawg on Jan 13, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. If WSU fans really want to get chippy about funding, let’s lay bare the facts about funding of WSU athletics vs. funding of UW athletics over the years. I don’t think WSU fans will like the results of that, as it will show the UW is waaaay behind WSU in terms of state taxpayer subsidy.

by kirkd on Jan 13, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Right!...

…I’m surprised more people haven’t used that. That could amount to a serious amount of tax payer dollars that goes (unwillingly on my part and any other Husky fan’s) to fund wsu athletics. Are you kidding me! I’m getting more upset the more I think about it!

by doubledeucedawg on Jan 13, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting ...

… not being in state, I didn’t realize that. Do you know roughly by how much?

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Jan 14, 2009 7:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As noted in a P-I article this morning, WSU receives at least 10 percent of their athletic department funding from the University’s general fund, and the state contributed 80% (~$29M) for Bohler Gym Addition and other projects in ‘98 and ’01. In addition, I know that construction of Beasley Coliseum (which houses Friel Court, their basketball arena) was mostly paid for by the state, and I would be surprised if the state didn’t also contribute to building Martin Stadium in ’71 and the renovation (removing the track and lowering the bowl) in ’79.

By contrast, the UW’s athletic department has been self-funded since at least the late ’70’s, and renovations to Husky Stadium in ’87 and Hec Ed in ’99 were funded without using any state money.

by kirkd on Jan 14, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The place needs a lot of work

It has become very apparent over the last 15 years that the place needs a lot of work to be compliant in any way. the view is great but for older ticket holders (we will all be older some day) safety and access really need to be improved.

by John Berkowitz on Jan 12, 2009 1:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly!

Look at all the baby boomers coming up. If that stadium isn’t made safe and compliant to ADA then the state assumes a lot of risk. The other thing is those are the people who pay Tyee funds for seats which funds Husky Athletics. UW is one of only 17 major college programs that is self supporting. Wsu is one that isn’t, should we stop subsidizing the athletic department at wsu?

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Safety should always be priority number 1.

A stadium renovation to update the aesthetic appeal would be a lot tougher to pass than one that was needed for safety…it’s just a plus that the place gets a nice face lift in the process!

by bigdave967 on Jan 12, 2009 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't know where I stand,

but I give all of the politicians a B+ for their effort. Isn’t this the stadium upgrade that Paul Allen wanted to do? The local neighbors complained, the UW, and then Allen backed off. It was kind of like the people that buy a cheap house near the airport and then complain about the noise.

So now we want to upgrade the stadium again, this time after building Quest, with no Seahawk money to help out. I certainly agree that it should be started before the Toy Trains (at $13k per inch) and the 520 bridge gear up their endless money pit.

The people and the politicians have to decide if we need 2 classy stadiums for 18 events a year. If they build everything, I will be able to take a but to the train, and then the train to Northgate, and then a bus to Husky Stadium in about 20 years. Whatever the decision, I’m sure the politicians will put forth a B+ effort.

by dawgdude on Jan 12, 2009 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn’t you just get off the train at the Husky Stadium station?

by kirkd on Jan 12, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Details

Does anyone know what actual work would be done to the stadium specifically?

by AllEyezOnMe on Jan 12, 2009 3:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The quick and dirty synopsis is this:

- Lower the field and remove the track
- Rebuild the lower bowl completely, and with the track gone, bring the West endzone much closer to the playing field
- Included in the lower bowl rebuild would be a luxury seating area similar to the Don James Center located on the South side
- Also included in the lower bowl rebuild would be major improvements in concourse widths and amenities
- The lower bowl rebuild could also potentially include additional football/athletic department offices built-in to the re-done West endzone portion

Here’s a page that includes a link to a gallery of concept drawings from the UW website: http://gohuskies.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/042707aab.html

This is all subject to some revision depending on the actual funding and current cost estimates, but the basic idea is lower the field, remove the track, rebuild the lower bowl (including bringing the West endzone closer to the field.

by kirkd on Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Football facility Building?

I could be wrong, I was wrong once before ;O), but I believe the funding plan also includes a football specific building. I don’t know if they changed their minds regarding Husky Stadium and coaches offices being included. I read this somewhere recently, it was in a letter from Emmert to the UW faculty and staff.

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

That stadium looks hella cool. Will it ever be able to fill up though? There’s nothing like the noise of a packed husky stadium

by AllEyezOnMe on Jan 12, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure it will – I don’t think the capacity on the concepts is much above current capacity, especially if they hold off on a West endzone upper deck for now (which is highly likely). All it takes is getting back to consistent winning and the fans will return, especially with the far more fan-friendly regime in place now.

by kirkd on Jan 12, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Capacity

Capacity won’t change with this edition of the remodel.

In the future there are plans to add a covered upper deck to the West endzone which will boost capacity of needed. 72,500 has always been about the right size for the program win or lose.

by John Berkowitz on Jan 13, 2009 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t need the hear anymore rumors regarding the rennovation of Husky Stadium. I want to hear it has been approved and that a ground breaking date has been scheduled.

Get this thing done. Oregon and Oregon State have completed rennovation and construction athletic projects and their has to be a correlation between the “arms race” and being successful. That and hiring an outstanding coaching staff and a top flight athetic department.

Get it built! WOOF!!!

by crazidawg on Jan 12, 2009 4:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good Crazi

We will keep you posted….lol

Seriously…. it is going to get done. This end run is perfectly planned.

by John Berkowitz on Jan 12, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Are we going to compete and do we care?

I know we are the minority out there. A lot of Washingtonians could care less. The good news is the taxes are coming from the people who benefit from Husky Football games, the hotels etc. Does it make sense that this tax base builds a 350 million dollar stadium for a billionaire? UW could argue that it brings in more tax revenue compared to Qwest field. Regardless though, they want less than half as much money.

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

King County Council email

council@kingcounty.gov

If we could all send an email asking the council to support the Husky Stadium Renovation that would be a GOOD thing!

by dawgfan22 on Jan 12, 2009 5:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Safeco and Quest = Junk bonds

The powers that be sold you all a bunch of junk bonds. The NFL and MLB does not bring in very much out of state revenue. How many Texas Ranger fans from the state of Texas come to Seattle to watch their Rangers? How many Arizona Cardinal fans from Arizona come up to watch their Cardinals?

But when we schedule Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame- Husky Stadium is full of Buckeyes, Sooners, and Domers. Not to mention a lot of ducks, beavs, trojans, bruins, bears, and trees.

College football fans travel, but NFL and MLB is more or less a television sport. College football would push the hotel, dining, and rental car businesses thru the roof in the greater Seatte market. Witht the NFL and MLB the only thing that sells like hot cakes is LCD-HD 46" plasma flat screens- get it? It’s no wonder Seattle opted out on building a new basketball arena, maybe somebody saw that both Safeco and Quest doesn’t bring in out of state revenue like they initially thought. But college football brings in 20,000 out of state fans that would need a hotel room, eat out, and will need a rental car to see and pay for all the touristy stops that all of Seattle has to offer. Build it!

by crazidawg on Jan 12, 2009 5:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Stadium will have to be done.

Anybody know what the cost of using Qwest will be in terms of rental or lease? It would seem that those costs will have to be figured into the equation also.

by fudazz on Jan 12, 2009 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The Seattle media types are idiots

The King5 sports guy reporting on the story says they want to use tax payer dollars not that they want to use the money from hotel/motel tax in King County. He’s right and he’s wrong but most people don’t know or care about the difference.

It would be great if the TV types in Seattle made an attempt to present things factually.

by T9ODawg on Jan 12, 2009 6:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs