IBJNews

Latest CIB budget contains no new payments to Pacers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After receiving $30 million in taxpayer help the past three years, Pacers Sports & Entertainment isn't set to get any subsidies in a new budget that will be unveiled Monday afternoon by the Capital Improvement Board, according to the board’s chief financial officer.

Discussions, however, continue between CIB officials and Pacers officials on “future lease agreements” involving Bankers Life Fieldhouse, home arena for the Indiana Pacers and the Indiana Fever professional basketball teams, according to CFO Dan Huge.

CIB is the city-controlled entity that owns Bankers Life Fieldhouse. The board leases the arena in downtown Indianapolis to the Pacers for $1 per year, with the Pacers bearing the costs to operate it and keeping any profits it can earn while doing so.

In 2010, CIB agreed to provide the Pacers $30 million over three years to help cover the costs of operating the facility.

“The CIB and Pacers continue discussions about future lease agreements,” Huge said.

When asked if the Pacers had requested another installment of the loan, he said, “I am unaware of that," but reiterated that CIB and the team have had discussions about a future agreement.

A call to Pacers spokesman Greg Schenkel was not returned Monday morning.

The last of three $10 million payments was made by CIB to the Pacers in January, which was designed to help the team through the 2012-2013 season, Huge said.

The Pacers’ lease on the fieldhouse runs until 2019 and the team would have to pay back at least some of the subsidies if it leaves Indianapolis before then. The team is owned by Herb Simon, who made his fortune in the shopping mall development business.

During the 11 years after the fieldhouse opened in 1999, the Pacers organization said it lost money every year but one on its operations. Team officials said they spent $14 million to $18 million each year on operations, but did not recoup enough from hosting events at the venue to turn a profit.

The subsidy agreement, which also included at least $3.5 million and as much as $8.2 million for capital improvements, was opposed by only one of CIB’s members. Douglas Brown said he preferred that the city and team craft a longer-term deal right away, rather than delaying for three years.

The Pacers’ request for help—initially to the tune of $15 million per year—came while CIB was in the midst of its own financial crisis. The board was struggling to balance its budget mainly because of higher operating costs for the new Lucas Oil Stadium compared with the old RCA Dome.

CIB's 2013 budget will be released Monday at 3 p.m. The board's budget must eventually win approval from the City-County Council.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Well said
    Taxpayer is correct. So why does the public treat Irsay like a star and the Simons like villans?
  • Public/Private Partnership doesn't mean Private Profits and Public Losses
    The CIB should be talking to the Colts about restructuring the Lucas Oil Stadium agreement to be more in line with the Pacers current agreement on Bankers Life Fieldhouse. It was the Colts that caused the CIB losses and fuels the Pacers demands to hose taxpayers like Jim Irsey.
  • Time to Repay The $30 Million Loan
    We were told that the $30 million was a short loan that needed to be repaid. Now everyone acts like it was a gift. Seems the city could use that money to plug the $70 million budget shortfall since the Pacers have a new NBA TV agreement and player contract concessions.
  • Common Sense
    How does anyone know if the Pacers lost money during any of these years and why should the citizens of Indianapolis pay for this? Have the Pacers ever shown their books to the city, the CIB or the public? Where's the outrage? You shut your libraries yet can't even get the Pacers to open their books?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT