New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

[GopherHole]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Per T.V.

Regents call puts latest potential bonding rate on SDSU football stadium at 3.98, down from 4.55. That adds up on $39M repaid over 25 years.

Does that mean season ticket prices will be going down?

meh, more dollars available for other benefits.

[Jacks-02]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Per T.V.

Regents call puts latest potential bonding rate on SDSU football stadium at 3.98, down from 4.55. That adds up on $39M repaid over 25 years.

No joke, at a 0.57% difference that is $222,300 per year less in interest on $39M.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Does that mean season ticket prices will be going down?

meh, more dollars available for other benefits.

Yeah I reckon so- that is more available dollars. It's going to be a big deal though.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

No joke, at a 0.57% difference that is $222,300 per year less in interest on $39M.

Wouldn't it actually be more than that? Interest would be compounded no?

I'm not an economics guy so maybe it's not much of a difference. I seem to remember from a course in college that the difference between simple and compounded interest could be significant over the life of a loan.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Wouldn't it actually be more than that? Interest would be compounded no?

Good catch, it would be compounded and little wee cents often become big dollars.

[slosho]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Per T.V.

Regents call puts latest potential bonding rate on SDSU football stadium at 3.98, down from 4.55. That adds up on $39M repaid over 25 years.

compounded annually using the #'s above and this http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fin...calculator.php

3.98% = $22,627,779.46 in interest

4.66 = $26,364,893.03

At least that is what I get; so a savings of 4 Million in interest.

[KUlawJack]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I just read through the design stuff from that pdf. Looks like we'll have aluminum bleachers rather than cement and wood.

[Nidaros]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I just read through the design stuff from that pdf. Looks like we'll have aluminum bleachers rather than cement and wood.

If a lawyer read that, then it must be in there. I was looking for that reference and did not find it. I hope this is satisfactory with our Bizon fans.

[SDSU_TUBA]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

The risers will be aluminum planks to which the chair backs will be bolted. Only the student/band section will have aluminum benches.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 822 using Tapatalk

[GopherHole]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I see that they intend to have the building qualified for LEED Silver Certification. That's not extremely high, but I'm not noticing much unique in the building design for energy efficiency, site development, or other factors that will score high. I'm assuming there are others out on the forum that have more experience than I for evaluating the proposal before the BOR. What do you think?

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I see that they intend to have the building qualified for LEED Silver Certification. That's not extremely high, but I'm not noticing much unique in the building design for energy efficiency, site development, or other factors that will score high. I'm assuming there are others out on the forum that have more experience than I for evaluating the proposal before the BOR. What do you think?

LEED Certification is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[Bozemaniac]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

LEED Certification is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

All that smoke is probably bad for the environment.

[jack power]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

Go Big. Go Green? Go Jacks

[slosho]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

LEED Certification is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

I'm not going to argue with this statement. But add that local sourcing for materials counts favorably. And I think it is (almost) a state mandate for new structures.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: New SDSU Football Stadium Site Plan

I'm not going to argue with this statement. But add that local sourcing for materials counts favorably. And I think it is (almost) a state mandate for new structures.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

I should clarify. I'm not against the principle of LEED which for those who don't know is basically reducing energy usage in buildings by meeting certain requirements during building design.

What I don't agree with is paying (which can amount to thousands of dollars) to get a certificate that means absolutely zero. Many of the things required for LEED certification are things that we as building designers should be doing regardless because they are beneficial to our client, ie designing an energy efficient mechanical system.

I don't agree with spending money just to get to a LEED credit.

I know at the federal level all new buildings have to be LEED certified. I don't know about individual state and local jurisdictions but many likely have mandates.

When I first started at the company I'm currently with LEED was relatively new. We had a partner that was hook line and sinker into LEED. They pumped LEED on every project and paid employees a bonus to get certified as LEED professionals. We spent a TON of money pushing LEED. Then the recession came around and LEED really took a back seat. We were still designing around a lot of the principles with LEED, but we weren't pushing the certifications and weren't paying people to get their certification.

Now we rarely see a private client go after LEED certification. Most of the LEED projects we work on now-a-days are government jobs. Business savvy private clients see there is zero benefit in paying the fees to get a certificate.