Staffers from the city of Austin have been working for more than two months to gather information about Major League Soccer and its potential fit at a city-owned property at 10414 McKalla Place. On Friday, that report was delivered to City Council and released to the public. Precourt Sports Ventures, the operating group of the Columbus Crew, is wasting no time in its push to bring the team to Austin. PSV wants to have an agreement with the city to build a stadium in North Austin by this summer and aims for the team to move next season and play in a temporary venue. Just hours after staff's report was released, PSV shared its full proposal to partner with the city to build a privately financed stadium on the McKalla site. PSV’s proposal is 189 pages, and the city staff report comes in at 35 pages with additional addenda included. The full reports are included here and here, but below are some of the highlights.

City staff report: What you need to know

1. Staff believes professional soccer could work at McKalla Place, but didn’t rule out other uses

The executive summary of the report from Rebecca Giello, interim director of the city's Economic Development Department, state McKalla Place would be a “suitable site” for an MLS stadium. “There is current compliant zoning, sufficient utility capacity, and daily on-site trips would be low,” according to the report. However, the report doesn’t go as far as to say that soccer would be the only suitable use of the site. It indicates that if the city issues a request for proposals to developers, then other potential uses could be evaluated, such as uses for “affordable housing, creative space, parks and partnerships with nonprofits.” The report states that “there was not sufficient time to conduct the appropriate market and financial analysis to ascertain their financial viability of a generalized mixed-use development of the site.” However, staffers came up with what they called a “blended” scenario to evaluate mixed-use redevelopment against an MLS stadium.

2. Infrastructure costs for a stadium would be approximately $15.9 million

Under either the stadium or mixed-use redevelopment scenario, infrastructure investments would need to be made for improvements like improving water systems and building new MetroRail facilities. According to the report, general redevelopment infrastructure improvements would cost $29.9 million. Infrastructure improvements costs for the stadium would come in at $15.9 million because there would not be a need to construct roads or sidewalk streetscapes or pay a parkland fee. The staff report states that the city would typically request the developer to pay for infrastructure costs, “but the sharing of those costs can be negotiated through a public-private partnership.” According to the PSV proposal, the city would be responsible for “the development of all site preparation, remediation and off-site infrastructure as may be necessary for the stadium project.”

3. A third-party economic report gives the city numbers to work from

In March, Anthony Precourt wrote a letter outlining the team’s “commitment to the community” and the $326 million in economic benefits that would derive from the club’s presence in Austin, citing job creation, charitable donations, community events and more. At the request of Council Member Alison Alter, Stanford University professor and sports economics professor Roger Noll wrote a letter to council responding to Precourt. “In essence, the letter recasts the main elements of the expenditure side of Precourt’s business plan as economic benefits to Austin,” Noll wrote in the response. As part of its report, staff enlisted the services of a third-party firm, Brailsford & Dunlavey, to analyze the potential benefits of the MLS in the city. The report from B&D Venues is optimistic about the club’s economic impact. “Development of the project will generate meaningful one-time and recurring economic and fiscal impacts,” the report states. The report estimates $54.2 million in economic activity during the construction period and $25.6 million in recurring impacts. Additionally, the report estimates the city of Austin would bring in $11.4 million in tax revenue over 20 years with an additional $5.4 million in tax revenue to Capital Metro.

PSV proposal: What you need to know

1. The details are on the table

Before Friday, some details of what PSV would propose to the city had been revealed. Representatives from the Crew’s operating group said the stadium would be privately financed, and the city would retain ownership of both the land and the stadium, leasing it back to PSV. Details of the official proposal state that the city would lease the stadium to PSV for $1 per year. PSV would take on the risks of the operating costs and any overruns as well as accep the rewards of revenues from operating the stadium. Under PSV’s proposal, the lease would run for 20 years, with the option to extend for additional 20-year increments beyond the initial term, and the club would have the option to buy the stadium and land at the expiration of the initial lease for market value—currently $9.5 million, according to the staff report.

2. An official study is still to come, but initial report says the site is “viable” for traffic

The main concern for residents in the area of McKalla Place is traffic congestion in the area. PSV commissioned planning and design consultant firm Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. for a preliminary review analyzing event and match day traffic in the area but not a formal traffic impact analysis. According to a memo from Kimley-Horn , a formal analysis would need to be completed “to understand the effects of additional traffic and pedestrians on the existing network and to determine what, if any, mitigation is required.” The initial site plan for the stadium includes 1,000 on-site parking spaces for “essential personnel and VIP guests.” That means, according to Kimley-Horn’s estimates, about 18,000 patrons would be coming via either nearby shuttles, public transportation, ride-sharing services or bicycle. About 13,000 of those patrons would enter the stadium as pedestrians, coming either from public parking or shuttles, surrounding businesses, or public transit. Because of the significant pedestrian traffic into the stadium, Kimley-Horn’s report stated the site would be “viable if a Traffic Control Plan for personal vehicles, (ride-hailing companies), bicycles, shuttles and pedestrians is developed.”