Image courtesy Martin Möller, Wikimedia Commons
Today at 1:30 p.m., the Convention, Tourism, Arts & Humanities Committee of the city’s Board of Aldermen will once again consider a bill that could bring “world class outdoor high-quality music festivals” to the Gateway Mall during Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends for the next 20 years. The bill would contract with Summer Rocks, a company affiliated with powerhouse talent agency ICM, to put on the festivals. Supporters say this could give St. Louis an event to rival Lollapalooza in Chicago, Bonnaroo in Tennessee, or Coachella in California.
The contract seemed to be on the fast-track to approval, until concerns were raised about its non-compete clause. Mike Kociela, the founder of Entertainment St. Louis, testified against the bill at a hearing last week, saying it was the reason he chose to move Bluesweek (usually held over Memorial Day) and Taste of St. Louis to Chesterfield. Then, several officials were pulled out of the hearing entirely to meet with a lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch and the Cardinals, who have their own reservations about granting Summer Rocks exclusive rights to music festivals in the city. Now, a local musician has started a petition to stop the bill.
If the committee approves the bill at today's meeting, its second reading before the full Board of Aldermen would be this Friday. The first chance for it to be passed would be the April 14 meeting.
We went through the proposed agreement with a fine-tooth comb, then compared it to the similar contract between the Chicago Park Department and C3, the group that puts on Lollapalooza. Here’s what you need to know, starting with the most controversial provision.
Non-compete
In the original version of the contract, the city was required “not to issue permits for the conduct of for-profit music events substantially similar” to the proposed festivals, at any point during the term of the contract, up to 20 years. The agreement did, however, grandfather in existing festivals, including LouFest, Rock-A-Thon, the Big Muddy Blues Festival, Live on the Levee, and others. Still, that would prevent the Cardinals from starting a music festival at Ballpark Village and might limit large concerts at Busch Stadium.
According to various media reports, the non-compete clause has been altered to allow the city to grant permits to festivals that issue fewer than 25,000 tickets or have an investment of less than $8 million. As of yet, the copy of the contract available on the city’s website has not been updated. The previous language prevented Summer Rocks from putting on a similar festival within 300 miles of St. Louis, and there was talk of extending that radius to 400 miles. Another late addition, as President of the Board of Aldermen Lewis Reed announced on Twitter, would require at least 20 percent of the talent and vendors hired for the festival to be local.
In Chicago’s contract, C3 is given exclusive rights to holding music festivals in Grant Park.
With or without the non-compete clause, the deal has the potential to devastate existing events. This year, LouFest will be held the weekend after Labor Day. It’s hard to imagine both festivals succeeding long-term, within a week of each other.
In Chicago, the potential for unintended, negative side-effects has been a constant complaint. While Lollapalooza might help hotels and restaurants, it arguably harms the local music scene. Small bands and clubs can’t compete with national acts.
Compensation
Summer Rocks will pay St. Louis a minimum of $50,000 for each festival. The minimum payment will be made if fewer than 30,000 tickets are issued. If that number is exceeded, the city will receive a percentage of admission revenue. That percentage depends on the number of tickets, starting with 1 percent for 30,000 to 40,000 and climbing to 10.5 percent for more than 90,000. Those rates apply for the first 10 years of the contract. At the end of that 10-year period, Summer Rocks will have the option to renew the contract for another 10 years. During the renewal period, the fees go up, ranging from 2 percent to 15 percent of admission revenue, on the same sliding scale.
Chicago makes astronomically more money on its festival. There, the minimum payment to the city is $1.5 million. That’s 30 times more than the minimum payment to St. Louis. In 2014, Chicago will receive 13 percent of net admission revenue, plus a portion of sponsorship, food, and beverage revenue. Perhaps St. Louis should push for a bigger piece of the pie.
Summer Rocks Responsibilities
In this area, the contract seems to be favorable to the city. Summer Rocks is responsible for basically every aspect of production: hiring bands; constructing (at least one main and one side) stages; marketing the festivals; setting up and taking down all festival equipment and barricades; hiring security and other personnel; contracting with food and beverage vendors; providing bathroom facilities; cleaning up the Gateway Mall afterward to restore it to pre-festival condition; and covering “all costs associated directly or indirectly with each festival.”
That includes giving up to $400,000 to the city for services, as well as paying to block off parking meters. There are various deadlines and time constraints that govern how quickly Summer Rocks must make good on all of its obligations, with various penalties specified if it does not. The contract also suggests the use of organized labor, the promotion of sustainable recycling practices, giving preference to minority-owned businesses, and hiring local food trucks.
The agreement does, for obvious reasons, exempt the festival from noise ordinances. It also states that “the city acknowledges and agrees that such talent and performances may stimulate debate and commentary, may evoke emotion, and may be controversial.” In other words, if a rapper’s dirty language upsets your children, too bad.
If Summer Rocks fails to hold a festival, it must pay half of the reservation fee paid for the most recent previous festival. One interesting provision is that while the contract initially calls for two festivals per year, one on Memorial Day weekend and one on Labor Day weekend, Summer Rocks can opt to reduce the deal to only Labor or Memorial day, without penalty. One festival each year would seem more reasonable than jumping straight from zero to two.
City Responsibilities
The city basically agrees to grant Summer Rocks and its subcontractors all of the necessary permits involved with producing the festival.
Termination
For some, the biggest sticking point is whether the city can terminate the contract. If the city isn’t happy with the festivals, for whatever reason, could it still be stuck with them for 20 years?
A close reading of the contract reveals the city has limited outs. If Summer Rocks fails to produce at least one festival during any two-year period or if death, injury, riot, or fire damage result from any of the festivals, the city can opt out. Those are unlikely. The city’s best hope, if it wants out, is a provision that allows the city to terminate the contract if the festival is deemed to be a “public nuisance” or “unlawful assembly.” If the festival is just lame, rather than unruly, St. Louis might be out of luck.
Summer Rocks, on the other hand, can terminate the agreement at any time, if it “determines in its sole discretion that producing future festivals will not be profitable or otherwise feasible.”
Miscellaneous
As is often the case with these types of legal documents, the contract includes quite a few provisions that seem completely absurd to laypeople.
In a section explaining that Summer Rocks must accept the Gateway Mall in “as is” condition, the bill mentions the following remote hypothetical possibility: “The parties acknowledge that there are or may be underground or subsurface conditions at or affecting the festival areas, which could cause a subsidence, collapse or depression of the festival area grounds.”
You can never be too careful with sink holes.
But by far our favorite aspect of the contract is the following, from the section of definitions. Just in case you weren’t clear on what a food truck is, for the purposes of this document, it is defined as “a motorized vehicle that transports and sells food whether or not associated with a fixed location restaurant and whether or not the food is cooked within the vehicle.”
Boy, I’m glad we cleared that up.
