Why Did Sarah Parady Vote No on the New NWSL Stadium Proposal?

In mid-May, every City Council member but one—at-large council member Sarah Parady—voted to advance a proposal that would commit up to $70 million in public funding toward a new stadium for a professional women’s soccer team in Denver. The 14,500-seat venue, planned for the Santa Fe Yards site near I-25 and Broadway, would be among the first purpose-built stadiums for a National Women’s Soccer League franchise and would open in 2028.

The agreement sets the framework for a stadium but doesn’t finalize funding. Another council vote will come this fall, after designs and public input are completed. If approved, Denver would earmark money from the city’s capital improvement fund (supported by city property taxes) to pay for land and infrastructure upgrades in and around the stadium. Roughly $50 million would go to the future stadium’s property and another $20 million would provide things like roads, walkable pathways, and a park. The yet-to-be-named soccer team—which has an ownership group that includes IMA Financial Group CEO Rob Cohen—has said it will fund the stadium’s construction, which is estimated to cost between $150 million and $200 million. The city’s agreement, however, leaves open the possibility that the ownership group could seek tax increment financing, which would redirect new tax revenue generated by the stadium to help cover project-related costs.

At the meeting, council members raised questions about the speed of the process, the city’s long-term financial exposure, and transparency. Still, Parady was the lone “nay” on the tentative agreement. (Council member Amanda Sawyer was absent.) “It’s hard for me to see capital going out the door to purchase land that we otherwise wouldn’t be buying,” Parady says.

As NWSL fervor grows in Denver—and against the backdrop of an announcement that the city will be laying off workers and furloughing employees to address a $250 million budget shortfall—we talked with Parady about the proposed project and the opportunity costs that come with taxpayer involvement.

Editor’s note: The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

5280: Why did you vote no?
Sarah Parady: It’s a matter of priorities. It feels awful to be the person who’s saying, “We can’t afford this,” but I just genuinely don’t think we can afford it. I don’t think people are aware of how restricted we are on our ability to do capital projects—how much backlog we have on the nitty-gritty stuff of the city. City Park needs new sprinklers; there’s the new Park Hill park; there’s sewers; there’s storm drainage; there’s water and flood remediation we need to be doing. There are huge amounts of electrification we need to be doing to get ahead of climate change. We are so far beyond being able to afford a lot of the infrastructure that we [already] need.

Do you think the city is being pressured into this agreement?
It’s frustrating. We’re considering this separately from the rest of our budget, and normally, a budget is an act of prioritization. We lay out a budget in the fall of every year for the coming year. In this instance, we were asked to pull out this one use of funds and vote on it separately.

We’re on a timeline that has been set by contractual relationships between parties that aren’t the city. You have the National Women’s Soccer League and this ownership group, and it’s really their timeline that led to this vote.

What other concerns do you have?
The piece I think is so insidious is that the ownership group plans to come back and ask for a really hefty additional public subsidy for a project that’s for private profit. They told us in a public meeting, well into this process—I think a week before the first vote—that their plan is to apply for public financing for the entire cost of building the stadium. And this is a private stadium; it’s not a public facility.

So even more money will need to come from the city to pay for construction?
They are trying very hard to make this a second-phase decision, which it would be. It’s not as though we’re committed to restructuring the urban renewal district and allowing that. But it is their plan to request [additional public funding].

I have to think that, if we commit to this—if the city buys the land, we start building a bridge, a park, all those things—then you’re locked in. Then the ownership group comes back and says, “We don’t have the financing to get this thing built.” At that point, it becomes a lot harder for us to walk it back. By then, we’ve purchased the land, and we’ve gotten people in the city excited about this. We might have players for the team by then. We have other costs out the door.

I’m really concerned that the ownership group has known from the jump that their intention was to ask [the city] for financing, and they didn’t reveal that upfront to the City Council or to the public. The reason that matters is because that tells us something about how they think they’re going to pay for the stadium. That’s been one of my questions from the beginning: Can you really afford this thing, given that women’s soccer is new to profitability? I’ve asked, “How do we know you’re really going to build the stadium?” They said, “We’re committed; we’re absolutely going to do it.” But then it turns out that their intention is to seek public financing for it. I really feel that should have been transparently and very affirmatively revealed, and not something that had to be extracted in public questioning.

Do you think this ownership group should have figured out alternative financing on this project, without public assistance?
I just don’t know why we’re paying for it. This is an extremely wealthy private ownership group. I know they’re going to make their investment decision based on private profit. And perhaps if the city doesn’t invest in this, that’s what tips it over into being potentially unprofitable. And then the private ownership group loses interest. Or maybe that doesn’t tip this over and the [ownership group] decides they can still afford it.

Where would you rather see the money spent?
I’d want it to go for city-owned, mixed-income housing, where market-rate rents cross-subsidize the lower rents. To me, that’s a much higher priority than trying to spur a private stadium deal.

Would you support a stadium at this location if it didn’t use public funds?
I would love to see it develop. I think it’s the right site. There’s already been a lot of money put into remediating the land and getting it ready to build on. Like everyone else, I would love to see that finally happen. But it’s a question of whether it’s worth this level of public subsidy.

Read More: Everything You Need to Know About Denver’s New Pro Women’s Soccer Team