As soon as I can get a link or better copy I will post the chart (people like pictures).
As it turns out, if the city doesn't invest actual cash then expecting a rate of return (2.7%, Treasury Bill, I-91 requirement) lower than the rate you used the borrow the money (about 5.5% bond rate) you lose money.
If you use that borrowed money to buy property and an arena then you get valuable property.
There isn't a scenario where expecting 2.7% return is better than the arena proposal.
After 40 minutes of the Seattle City Council flipping the numbers around, and imagining different ways to understand the arena proposal in context of I-91, the analysis still stands.
Who is leveraging what, and profiting?
The city is borrowing my beer drinking money, and getting a good chunk of property, with zero cash invested.
Looks like the public and the private parties are benefitting.