Water park not feasible without incentives

November 9, 2018

This slide explains the water park viability as well as anything we have seen:

The red coloring is part of a page in an economic impact analysis that the city has posted on their website.  You can read it here.

Simply put the analysis concluded that the hotel would only generate an internal rate of return of 4.2% unless someone kicked in some free money (government incentives).

The authors stated that investors would need an internal rate of return of between 14 and 16%.

They stated “As a result, in the absence of additional financial incentives, the Proposed Hotel is likely not feasible.”

Aren’t we nice?

We deserve better

Brutus

11 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Proving where you live

November 8, 2018

City council is planning to pass an ordinance requiring entrance fees to use the new eastside sports complex.

The ordinance exempts residents of both PID (property improvement district) 2 and TIRZ (tax increment refinance zone) 9 because of the money that those properties contributed to the building of the complex.

My question is how will the city know which people to exempt?  How will people prove that they live within those two areas?  How much will it cost to have people administer the exemption?

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Trading land you don’t own

November 4, 2018

There has been a lot of activity talking about the water park the last few days.

Part of the package involves the city trading property with a local land owner.

The city then plans to lease their newly acquired land to the resort company.

The rest of the story is that the city does not own the land it plans to trade.  Our water utility does.  The city is planning to buy the land from the water utility and pay for it over a 30 year period.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Hotel occupancy tax issue

November 3, 2018

Good government oxymoron wrote this the other day:

A percentage of the HOT tax was approved soley for paying for the stadium.

How is the city legally allowed to waive it or rebate it back to a hotel???

*******************************************************

That got us to wondering so we found the ballot language that the voters were asked to approve.

VENUE PROJECT AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PROPOSITION

“AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, TO DESIGNATE THE MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PROJECT AS A SPORTS AND COMMUNITY VENUE PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE OCCUPANCY OF A ROOM IN A HOTEL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TWO PERCENT (2%) OF THE PRICE PAID FOR SUCH ROOM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING SUCH VENUE PROJECT.”

Good government oxymoron is right.

According to the Texas comptroller of public accounts:

The city of El Paso collects the municipal hotel occupancy tax at 7 percent to support an auditorium and convention center, and in 2012 introduced an additional 2 percent levy via a venue district hotel tax for a multipurpose sports stadium. Combined city HOT taxes totaled $13.1 million in fiscal 2015.

The documents with the water park specify the hotel occupancy tax rebate at 7 percent.  It looks like the city is respecting its obligation on the 2 percent but the comptroller’s explanation seems to mean that the other 7 percent is also allocated and the city cannot re-purpose it.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Impossible occupancy rate

November 2, 2018

John Hogan made this comment that we believe deserves it’s own post:

One article I read said that the Great Wolf Lodge could bring 500,000 people to El Paso per year. That’s a really rosey outlook because with 350 rooms, that would require every room to have 4 people in it 365 days a year.

**************************************

It is good to see citizens taking a critical look at the baloney that these people are spewing.

Unfortunately no one on city council brought this up.

Brutus

15 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »