With Columbus Crew owner Anthony Precourt having set a June 30 deadline for the city of Austin to approve a stadium deal so he can relocate his soccer team — you’d think that a guy who has his heart set on moving to one particular city wouldn’t be in a position to set ultimatums, but as we’ve seen, arbitrary deadlines are an integral part of the stadium game — things are starting to heat up in the stadium-proposal-mulling department:

A report released by the city of Austin on Friday has ruled that Precourt’s preferred location at McKalla Place is “a suitable site for a Major League Soccer stadium,” while also evaluating how it would work for a mixed-use development that would include affordable housing — which came down to we don’t have time to fully study this, but we could if you want. It also estimated that preparing infrastructure for the site would cost about $16 million for soccer (vs. $30 million for the housing plan), noting that “typically the City would request the developer to pay for these costs but the sharing of those costs can be negotiated through a public-private partnership.”

An accompanying economic impact study by Brailsford & Dunlavey found that the stadium would provide a net present value of $16.8 million in new tax revenues over its lifetime, assuming that 50% of soccer ticket buyers were from within Austin, 40% traveled in just for the game from outside Austin, and 10% were visitors who stayed overnight — numbers that B&D apparently made up out of whole cloth, or at least if there’s a reason behind them, it’s not in their report. Also not in the report: any analysis of the economic impact of an alternative use of the land, such as for a mixed-use development.

Also on Friday, Precourt issued the latest iteration of his stadium proposal, which is heavy on photos featuring soccer boots and fans being bathed in confetti, but if you dig way down to page 155 includes the detail that Precourt would pay to build the stadium and would then donate it to the city, which sounds generous except when you consider that then Precourt would get out of paying property taxes on the land. Precourt would pay only $1 a year rent over the course of a 20-year lease, and would collect “all naming rights, sponsorship, and advertising revenue within the Stadium Site,” though at lest he would also be responsible for “all capital repairs, replacements, and improvements” to the stadium over the course of the lease.

An online survey of 600 likely Austin voters found that 43% think Precourt should purchase private land, and only 19% think he should use public land; 83% think the city should charge fair market value for any public land used; 87% think Precourt should have to pay property taxes; 84% think the city should get some revenue from stadium events; and 83% think Precourt should pay for infrastructure costs of a new stadium. In other words, likely Austin voters overwhelmingly oppose pretty much everything about this deal.

The Austin city council has two work sessions and two public meetings scheduled in June before Precourt’s self-imposed deadline; they clearly have their work cut out for them.