ATORNEYSAT LAW

E
F%, I- E & LARDIER

NEW YORK, NY 10016-1314 212.682.7474 TEL 212.687.2329 FA)( WWW.FOLEY.COM WRITERS DIRECT LINE 202.295.4031 iraij@foley.com EMAIL CLIENT/MATTER NUMBER 106542/0101

January 23, 2014

VIA FEDEX

Mayor Stephanie A. Miner City of Syracuse 203 City Hall 233 E. Washington St. Syracuse, New York 13202

Dear Mayor Miner: Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud asked me to respond to your letter to him dated January 10, 2014 formally requesting additional information related to a possible new stadium in Syracuse. As you know, the University has retained me as a consultant to help it assess and analyze the proposed project. As you and I have discussed prior, the University was asked to assess the possibility of becoming a tenant in a potential new multi-sport stadium, which could be owned and operated by one or more non-University entities. Accordingly, given that the Carrier Dome is a facility that will ultimately require new investment over the long-term, the University pursued this opportunity. Furthermore, we were asked to be mindful of opportunities a new stadium might create for new economic benefits and development for the Syracuse and Central New York communities. The University agreed to engage a consultant to help it understand and develop a vision for a stadium that could provide a fan-friendly home for some of SUs athletics teams, along with a wide range of other sports, musical and entertainment events and other opportunities that could facilitate broader regional economic development. To be clear, at no time have any formal agreements with any governmental entities, developers or operators been reached to implement this vision. Moreover, the vision is still a work in progress as the study remains ongoing and in draft form. I would also note that this letter contains the relevant information and facts found in the current draft study. As with most public-private partnerships, stadium development is a dynamic process with multiple moving parts. The Universitys objective was to better understand what vision for a new stadium could work for Syracuse University and mesh with that of the potential owners/operators of the stadium, and then work on developing answers to the questions of all the potential interested parties, including the City.

BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DETROIT

JACKSONVILLE LOS ANGELES MADISON MIAMI

MILWAUKEE NEW YORK ORLANOO SACRAMENTO

SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY

TALLAHASSEE TAMPA TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C.

4841-2591-2088.1

:F0LEY
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Mayor Stephanie A. Miner January 23, 2014 Page 2 This letter will outline the vision framework we have previously discussed and will formally respond to your questions. Considering current status of assessment, there will be several questions to which the answers are incomplete because they require input from public sector leaders, the community, and potential developers and operators. With that said, I trust you will find the written responses to your inquiries helpful. Building Program and Construction Costs This process began with the assistance of program, design and construction experts creating a budget for a 44,000 seat retractable roof stadium that, similar to the Carrier Dome, would be capable of hosting basketball, football, and lacrosse events for SU and NCAA championship competitions, as well as a range of other events that might be staged by the owner/operator, ranging from concerts to expositions to other sporting events. The preliminary order of magnitude construction estimate for such a facility is approximately $495,000,000, including hard and soft costs, as well as furniture, fixtures, and equipment. This amount does not include parking or land acquisition. By including a retractable roof with climate control, it may be possible to have an additional three months of stadium events in the summer for the stadium owner/operator to attempt to draw additional entertainment opportunities to the region. It is estimated that it would take approximately four years for the stadium to be constructed and become operational. I have attached a preliminary general building program for your information. Facility Finance Plan The finance plan being contemplated was contingent upon the formation of a public-private partnership that would include direct investment from the State, County, and the private sector, including the University. Given the University would be a tenant, and not an owner or operator, the Universitys investment would be predominately in the form of rent. There was no expectation that the City would be part of the plan to fund the construction of the stadium or its operation. While there is much discussion and discourse to be undertaken, it appears that it is indeed possible for the various investors to achieve a satisfactory plan. The University remains interested in working with the parties and we believe the State and County remain interested in creating a structure that would facilitate the implementation of the project vision. Operating Expenses An estimated order of magnitude budget was developed looking at historical operating costs of the Carrier Dome, industry standards for the size and scope of the building, and feedback received from industry experts, including an annual capital improvement spending plan of $1,500,000, and a stadium events preliminary estimated operating budget that is dependent on number and types of events. This cost could be funded directly by the stadium revenues, and it has been contemplated that any plan would explicitly state that public sector would not have an obligation to fund any ongoing expenses.

4841-2591-2088.1

:F0LEY
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Mayor Stephanie A. Miner January 23, 2014 Page 3

Site Options The analysis was not site specific. One of the initial objectives was to establish criteria for site selection. The criteria included proximity to campus, utilization of existing infrastructure, parking availability and overall economic benefitJdevelopment for the community. Land currently owned by the University, including Skytop, was considered, but it was determined that greater public benefit could be created if the stadium was not on University land. After reviewing the Loguen Crossing site controlled by COR and related infrastructure tied to the Connective Corridor including over 10,500 parking spaces within /2 mile of the site, this became the leading site. Moreover, the development COR contemplatedincluding a 250 room hotel, over 160 apartments, and 150,000 square feet of retailoffered the opportunity for substantial economic development for the community. To be clear, this site has not been secured for the stadium and would require additional discussions. Carrier Dome Condition and for Future Use The Carrier Dome remains a quality facility and the University continues to make changes to better maintain and operate the building. As the facility continues to age we anticipate three types of significant capital improvements will be necessary if a new facility is not developed: 1) systems replacement, 2) roof related structure and 3) fan amenities. The University is continuing to analyze the timing and costs of such additional improvements. No plan has yet been created regarding future use of the building or site if a new stadium is constructed. Stadium Ownership, Site Ownership and University Relationship Ownership of the stadium site and the stadium itself is in large part dependent on the preference of public sector leadership and current site ownership. The final structure would be predominantly determined by the preferences of the public stakeholders. However, as described earlier, the University would be a tenant, not an owner, and would pay rent. Public Infrastructure, Service Agreements (Police, firefighter, traffic) and Public Services It is expected that the stadium would not impact existing service agreements in these areas as the facility operating budget would fund the required costs for police and firefighters and other public services.

Upon selection of a site and receipt of budget approval, a complete analysis of the traffic patterns must take place. The ongoing discussions regarding 1-81 and its future will clearly impact traffic patterns, therefore if agreement were reached to move forward with a new stadium, the parties would engage in further analysis and discussion on how best to create a viable traffic plan. The overall impact on public services will be better understood upon agreement to move forward with the project.

4841-2591-2088.1

:FOLEY
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Mayor Stephanie A. Miner January 23, 2014 Page 4 Property Tax Whether the stadium or the underlying property would be subject to property tax is dependent on the final form of stadium and site ownership, but it would not impact the University because the stadium would not be owned by SU nor be on SU land. As such, it also would not be affected by the Universitys tax-exempt status. Community Benefits As noted, the University would be the primary tenant and not the owner, developer, or operator of the stadium. In our role as primary tenant, we are supportive of measures such as prevailing wages during construction to help ensure maximum public benefit. How we accomplish this objective is subject to further discussions with stakeholders. In general, we believe the benefits to the community could be substantial in terms of opportunities for new events, new development, and the associated economic benefits. Design Although architects and design professionals have assisted with the analysis, neither the University nor the other potential government and non-government entities have selected an architect to design the new stadium. Upon agreement to and approval of a funding plan, an architect and other design professionals would be selected to design the stadium and would be tasked with developing a cohesive plan that reflects community input and takes into consideration the neighborhood and the region. In sum, the fundamental tenants of a deal structure have been coming together to form a vision and goal. The dynamic nature of organizing this type of complex public-private partnership requires an initial vision and general spending and funding plan. Afterward, if it is decided that the stadium is to be pursued, formalizing the agreements to implement the vision and certain questions posed in your letter will be specifically addressed following feedback from our public partners. Moving forward, the University is ready to work together with you and all interested parties on this potential opportunity. Sincerely,

Irwin P. Raij, Esq. Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP Enclosures

4841-2591-2088.1

Stadium Program
New Program 44,000 seats seats Seating Bowl Seating Capacity: Total Seating Bowl Size Retractable Seating for Basketball Main Videoboard/Center Hung Ribbon Boards 44,000 5,000 6 247,030 30,000 qty

gsf mult.

Revised gsf

I
Playing Surface / Football Field Playing Surface Basketball Court Playing Field Entrances Field Toilets T\ Truck Parking TV Studio/Scoreboard Production Team Bus / Drop Off Broadcast Headend A/v System & Computer Network ITS Telecommunications Show Power/Sound Tech nology/DAS/Wireless
-

gsf/qty

Total gsf 110,000 25,000 6,000 320 10,000 4,000 10,000 400 1,920 800 2,400

1 4 4 1 1 1 1 16 2 1

25,000 1,500 80 10,000 4,000 10,000 400 120 400 2,400

Roof: qty Fan Amenities Club Areas Concierge Stations 1,020 4 13 400 14,350 12,750 1,600

gsf/qty

Total gsf

I
Public Spaces Concourses / Circulation Turnstiles / Entry Points (1:750) Drinking Fountains ATMs First Aid / Spectator Asst ( 1:Lvl) Entry Storage

qty

gsf/qty

Total gsf

44,000 59 7 4 5.4

2.5 75 50 250 500

110,000 4,400 350 1,000 2,700

1 of 5

Stadium Program
New Program 44,000 seats Restrooms Mens Restrooms water closets urinals lavatories 65,583

126 252 140

55 55

6,930 13,833

Womens Restrooms water closets lavatories Unisex Restrooms water closets lavatories janitors Closets

787 147

55

43,290

7 7 18

90

630

50

900

I
Food Service & Retail Concession and Food Venues General Seating POS General Seating LF/SF Preferred Seating POS Preferred Seating LF/SF Vendor Commissary Commercial Kitchen/Central Commissary: Offices Lockers Beverage Coolers / Distribution Central Commissary Central Kitchen Indoor Club Catering / Warming Suite Catering / Warming Satellite Novelty Stands Novelty Storage

qty

gsf/qty

Total gsf

19,824 176 17.6 4.8 250 90 200 90 500 15,840 1,584 2,400 22,800 1,000 1,400 4,400 10,000 6,000 1,000 1,000 1,200 800

1 1 4.4 1 1 2 2 3 2

1,000 1,400 1,000 10,000 6,000 500 500 400 400

2 of 5

Stadium Program
New Program 44,000 seats qty Building Operations Security Center/Game Day Operations Bowl Security Center Security & Fire Command Staff & Press Entrance Employee Locker Rooms: Men Women Central Laundry Stadium Maintenance Shop Field Maintenance & Equipment Storage Receiving/Loading Dock Trash Handling (1 compactor! 1 recycling) Electrical General Mechanical General Fire Pump! Generator Misc Closets
-

gsf/qty

Total gsf

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 14

250 1,200 800 1,400 1,400 400 2,400 4,000 1,200 1,000 8,800 27,200 1,000 150

1,450 250 1,200 800 1,400 1,400 400 2,400 4,000 4,800 2000 8,800 27,200 2,000 2,100 4,160 240 3S0 500 390 900 600 80 400

Stadium Administration/Staff Offices Reception Area Large Office Small Office Workstations Conference Room Copy/Coffee/Filing Toilets Circulation Syracuse University Offices: General Operations qty Vertical Circulation Stair Ramp Freight/Press Elevator Passenger Elevator

1 2 4 6 3 1 2 1

240 175 125 65 300 600 40 400

700 gsf/qty Total gsf

700

16 8 4 16

400 8,000 200 100

72,800 6,400 64,000 800 1,600

3 of 5

Stadium Program
New Program 44,000 seats

I
Ticket Facilities Ticket Windows Ticket Lobby Interior Ticket Wndws/Adv. Ticket Sales Work Area Manager Office Waiting Office Counting Area Vault

qty

gsf/qty

Total gsf 5,552 792 2,500 180 600 480 500 300 200

8.8 1 2 1 4 1 1 1

90 2,500 90 600 120 500 300 200

I
Press Facilities Writing Press TV Broadcasting Radio Broadcasting Replay Booth Football Coaches Booth Public Address Scoreboard Control Workroom Game Film Platforms Local Broadcasters Booth Work Room Press Dining / Lounge Press Pantry / Serving Field Level Interview Rooms Large Field Level Interview Rooms Small Field Level work room
-

qty

I
14 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 12 1 1 2 1

gsf/qty

Total gsf 10,730 1,750 370 400 80 240 240 400 300 600 800 800 1,500 400 1,200 450 1,200 Total gsf 58,400

125 185 80 80 120 240 400 300 150 400 800 125 400 1,200 225 1,200

125 185 80 80 120 240 400 300 150 400 800 125 400 1,200 225 1,200

I
Team Space: Syracuse Football Locker Rooms: Locker Room Showers and Toilets Head Coach Asst Coaches Team Room

qty

I
1 1 1 1 1

gsf/qty

4,500 1,500 600 1,200 3,000

4,500 1,500 600 1,200 3,000

4 of 5

Stadium Program
New Program 44,000 seats

Syracuse Mens BB Locker Rooms: Locker Room Shared Showers and Toilets Coaches Syracuse Mens Lacrosse Locker Rooms: Locker Room Showers and Toilets Coaches Shared Team Offices: Game Day Syracuse Womens BB Locker Rooms: Locker Room Showers and Toilets Coaches Syracuse Womens Lacrosse Locker Rooms: Locker Room Showers and Toilets Coaches Visiting Team Locker Room 4*3: Football Locker Room Showers, Toilets, Training, Warm Up Coaches Equipment & Laundry Treatment (in-game) Officials Locker Room Game Crew Locker Room X-Ray & Doctors Office Relative Waiting / Recruiting Room Storage Total GSF: Total Less Basketball FIor & Retractables (gsf included w/in football gsf)

1 1 2

1,000 400 400

1,000 400 800

1 0 2 1

600 400 300 1,000

600 600 1,000

1 1 2

1,000 400 400

1,000 400 800

1 0 2

600 400 300

600 600

2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

1,000 600 400 1,000 2,000 400 200 500 1,500 LS

2,000 1,200 400 1,000 2,000 800 400 500 1,500 30,000 903,269

848,269]

5 of S

OFFICE OF THE

MAYOR

Stephanie A. Miner, Mayor

January 10, 2014

Chancellor-designate Kent D. Syverud Office of the Chancellor 900 S. Crouse Avenue Crouse-Hinds Hall, Suite 600 Syracuse, New York 13244-1100 Dear Kent: I am writing to follow up on our recent conversations regarding the proposed construction of a new sports stadium in the City of Syracuse. It is my understanding Syracuse University would be the key tenant in the proposed facility. While Im sure my constituents and I will have many more, the following questions represent my primary interests and concerns at this time: How will the construction and operation of the stadium be financed? Can you provide detailed construction and operating budgets for the City to review? What sites are being considered for the stadium, and by whom will the final site selection be made? What is the current condition of the Carrier Dome and what is the plan for its future use? Who will own the land upon which the stadium will be built, as well as the improvements to the land (i.e. the stadium)? What will Syracuse Universitys legal/contractual relationship be with the owner(s) of the stadium? What public infrastructure (i.e. sewer, water, roads, etc.) improvements will be needed for the stadium and who will be responsible for the cost, construction and ongoing maintenance of these improvements? What public services (i.e. police, fire, public works, etc.) will be required to support the stadium and who will he responsible for cost and delivery of these services? Will the land, and the improvements to the land, be subject to property taxes?

203 CITY HALL

SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202-1473 (315) 448-8005 WEB PAGE: www.syracuse.ny.us

FAX: (315) 448-8067

How will the new stadium impact the existing traffic and services agreements with the City of Syracuse? How will Syracuse University ensure maximum public benefit is achieved when constructing and operating the stadium? Will comniunity benefits and project labor agreements be negotiated as part of the project? What design and planning considerations will be made to ensure the stadium fits in with the existing neighborhood fabric around the site?

I fully understand and appreciate the positive contributions Syracuse University makes to our community, including in the areas of athletics and entertainment. That said, given the severely challenged fiscal and socioeconomic conditions in the City of Syracuse, it is critical that the aforementioned questions be addressed before any final decisions are made. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerly,

Stphanie A. Miner Cc: Eric Spina, Interim Chancellor and Provost, Syracuse University