The backup material for item 10A on next week’s city council agenda has some interesting language.
Item 10A asks for approval of a resolution that would approve of the first amendment to the ball park lease. The modification to the lease requires an ordinance changing the original ordinance.
Here is the language from the backup material:
In addition, due to the bond validation suit and other timing issues, certain language with respect to the financing needs to be amended.
I have no idea what that really means. The backup material certainly does not explain it.
What I do know is that I don’t trust them here.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole. Despite the way the planned revisions to the ballpark contract have been described by city management and council and reported by the media, Mountainstar is not really guaranteeing the additional $12 million. Part of the new funding from Mountainstar is said to be coming from ticket fees and parking revenue during the five additional years which are being added to the term. Both ticket fees and parking revenue are dependent on actual attendance, thus neither of those income levels are guaranteed.
Once again, we are dealing with estimates of income which might or might not be realized. Mountainstar should be required to write a check for the additional funds, which would avoid the need for adding debt. I’m betting that the supposed incremental funding from Mountainstar also does not factor in the interest cost.
The El Paso Times’ Cindy Ramirez just can’t quit shilling for special interests. The headline on her story a few days ago read: “Downtown El Paso ballpark investors want to pay $12.1M more toward stadium”. Foster and Hunt are not ballpark “investors”. They are tenants. Mountainstar is investing in a minor league franchise, NOT the ballpark. Also, they did not “want” to pay more otherwise they would not have had city management present the earlier proposal for the city to pay the additional $12 million.
LikeLike