Could Jaguars play 6 London home games over 4 years? Council discusses stadium deal (2024)

City Council will vote on the single largest spending deal in the history of the consolidated government in three weeks — giving them a limited amount of time to negotiate changes with the mayor’s administration and Jaguars.

Council had its first in a series of workshop meetings Wednesday to discuss the proposed funding mechanism for construction, the guarantee from the Jaguars and the non-relocation agreement.

Council members generally agreed with Mayor Donna Deegan’s financing plan, but several took issue with the potential the team could play two home games per season internationally every four years in the current 17-game regular season. That could rise to two home games per season outside Jacksonville every two years if the NFL went to an 18-game season.

City would spend $1.47 million on parking lots and drainage upkeep on top of stadium work

New draft agreements show closer look at non-relocation clauses, cost of stadium renovations

Community benefits agreement increases public support for Jaguars stadium deal, UNF poll finds

Council President Ron Salem said in December he would push for 60 days to debate the deal, but he is intent on voting on thenine agreements — including the contested community benefits agreement — on June 25. If the council requires more time, Salem said discussions will continue after the council break in July.

Even if council ultimately approves a deal, 75% of the NFL team owners must also give approval. The team plans to bring the final deal to the owners meeting in October.

Jaguars could play up to six games abroad every four years

The most pointed questions during the workshop focused on how often the Jaguars would be able to play home games outside Jacksonville.

In the proposed non-relocation agreement, Mayor Donna Deegan and the Jaguars agreed the team could continue playing one home game each year in London, continuing what the team has done over the past decade.

The proposed agreement also would allow a second game to be played abroad every four years if the NFL asked the Jaguars to do so in the league’s current 17-game regular season schedule. That would allow up to five of 34 regular season home games over a four-year period to be played outside Jacksonville.

If the NFL goes to an 18-game schedule, the Jaguars would have the ability to play a second home game outside Jacksonvillein the second and fourth years. That would permit them to move up to six of 36 home games elsewhere over a four-year period.

City Council members at the workshop did not have an issue with the Jaguars continuing to play one home game a year in London, but several said they wanted to draw a line at any more than that.

“It would be nice to have a guarantee that we only have one home game away from Jacksonville every year, especially with the amount of this investment we’re going to have,” council member Will Lahnen said.

City Council member Raul Arias said having one home game a year in London “adds value to our team overseas” and makes those fans more invested in the Jaguars. “However, I do have an issue with having additional games being played over there,” he said.

City Council member Michael Boylan said he will be focused on “making certain, as best as we possibly can, we only lose one home game a year.” He said if City Council put that limit in the agreement, the NFL owners could agree to it.

Jaguars say terms give flexibility "with guardrails" on London games

Jaguars President Mark Lamping said under the team’s current lease, there are no limits on how many home games the Jaguars can play elsewhere and the Jaguars want to retain flexibility “with guardrails that don’t currently exist” on that option.

“We’re not surprised that this is a big topic of discussion at all,” Lamping said.

He said there is “certainly a percentage of Jaguars fans” that don’t like the team playing one home game in London. He said the Jaguars sought a balanced agreement and the issue on home games was decided at the end of talks during a direct conversation between Deegan and Jaguars owner Shad Khan.

City spokesman Phillip Perry said discussion of home games happened throughout the negotiations on the stadium deal.

"Ultimately, the city of Jacksonville wanted more home games while the Jaguars wanted more flexibility to play games away," he said in response to emailed questions. "Together, we agreed to preserve the status quo, which is a minimum of seven homes games" per season in Jacksonville.

He said the negotiations also considered that if the NFL went to an 18-game season, which he described as a "complicated hypothetical" the league hasn't yet decided, the cost of season tickets would go up depending on how many home games are in Jacksonville. He said there is a "desire for season tickets to remain as affordable as possible."

"Additionally, it's important to keep in mind that this is a complicated deal overall with many different pieces and decisions that depend on each other," he said.

Salem said after the workshop he would prefer the Jaguars play no more than one home game outside Jacksonville each season, but it doesn’t appear City Council can alter that part of the agreement reached by the Jaguars and Deegan.

“I think it’s going to be difficult to change it,” he said. “It sounds like the Jaguars are pretty adamant about that, and it’s a negotiating point.”

The non-relocation agreement also spells out the financial damages the Jaguars would pay if the team left Jacksonville during the proposed 30-year lease. The team would have to repay the city for all its taxpayer contributions to the stadium work if it moved during the first 14 years of the lease. That repayment amount would drop to 75% in the fifteenth year and then go down by 5% each year thereafter.

Council members ‘have consensus’ on financing agreement

Deegan concluded her “community huddle” series last week in which she, Lamping and the city’s lead negotiator traveled around the city promoting their plan. Wednesday was the first day auditors, the financial advisers to City Council, got to weigh in on the agreement.

Payment for the stadium under the administration’s proposal requires the city to borrow its half of the renovation cost and maintenance funding — $775 million.

The justification for that debt involves the Better Jacksonville Plan. The city previously considered ending the plan’s half-penny sales tax after 2026, instead of after 2030, in order to start a new sales tax to fund the city’s pension debt earlier than initially expected.

But, ending the Better Jacksonville Plan tax early and not fully funding the remaining projects would have added to the city’s debt.

FAQ: Everything to know about the mayor's proposed 'Stadium of the Future' deal with the Jaguars

Instead, the stadium plan leaves the Better Jacksonville Plan money in place, funding the projects with cash on-hand and giving the city more borrowing capacity. The stadium itself could not be funded through the sales tax because it was not one of the voter-approved projects in a 2000 referendum.

The auditors called the plan “reasonable” and said it allowed the city to remain “debt neutral” while funding both priorities.

“It will indirectly, and I say indirectly, allow residents outside Duval County to help fund the stadium,” City Council Auditor Kim Taylor said because when tourists spend money in the county, they pay the sales tax that goes toward the infrastructure projects.

The pensions will still be fully funded under the originally approved timeline, Taylor said, instead of two or three years earlier had the tax started in 2027.

The incoming council president, Randy White, asked the negotiators to ensure the pension board approved of the plan, but the council members present largely gave their support for the funding structure.

If council wanted a new funding mechanism, Taylor said it could consider a combination of approaches: cutting costs in other areas of the city budget, increasing the property tax rate or other taxes or fees and using operating reserves.

New Duval County jail already a spending factor

Though the plans for a new jail are still largely speculative, the potential facility played heavily in the questions of council members looking forward.

“I really want to have these discussions go forward as we look at something we know is coming up, a responsibility for upwards of $1 billion for a new jail complex that we need very badly,” Chris Miller, an at-large council member, said. “And so I just want to make sure that in these discussions and as we look at the finances and associated debt that will need to be incurred and serviced, that we also look at things that are very important.”

Council auditors repeatedly stated that the proposed funding mechanism for the stadium keeps the city debt neutral, but the estimated cost for the jail could add $65 million to $80 million per year.

Council approved $9 million in maintenance spending earlier this year to extend the jail’s lifespan, but the recently disbanded special committee studying the jail estimated the need for a new facility in about five years.

The city has multiple options for financing, including potentially leasing the space back from a builder, Salem said. He still supported the stadium deal and thought the financing plan supported the idea of a jail in the future.

“I think it’s a good plan,” Salem said. “I think it saves us a lot of borrowing costs, and I think it prepares us down the road for possibly a second large vertical project like a jail.”

What’s next?

City Council will have a series of special meetings before the June 25 vote.

Normally, that council’s process takes place over a six-week period for a piece of legislation, but it will be accelerated for the stadium bill..

The deal will be introduced as one piece of legislation at the June 11 regular council meeting. There will be other workshops before a full meeting June 17, which will open the legislation for public hearings. There will be the opportunity for public comment at the end of each meeting.

Council members will be able to officially propose changes to the deal as amendments June 20.

Currently, the community benefits agreement will be included as one of the nine deals City Council will vote on, but there will likely be a push from council to remove it.

The proposed agreement includes $150 million apiece from the city and the Jaguars into homelessness initiatives, workforce development and riverfront parks.

Salem preferred to vote on it separately, but said the mayor pushed for it to be included in the first round. It would take a majority vote from the council to separate it.

“There are parts of it that I'm comfortable with, some of the parks stuff and such, but we have a budget, and we ought to be putting that stuff in the budget versus agreeing to put it in so far ahead,” Salem said. “That's my biggest concern.”

The next meeting will be a regularly scheduled full council meeting Tuesday at 5 p.m.