Quote:
Rule of Thirds Financing
City of Calgary pays $185M. Period. All other slushed costs outlined in their slide are on the City. Flames pay $185M. Period. Ticket Surcharge is $185M, and stays in place until that amount is recovered. City owns the building. Flames have exclusive use of the building and receive all revenues. City can recover their contribution through the imposition of a 1% entertainment tax, like they do in many of the US cities. This tax stays in place until that $185M is recovered. All revenues are recovered through use taxes and surcharges. Everyone gets what they want and what they need.
This is a win-win for everyone. City gets a recovery scheme for their investment. They also get a helluva deal on the "rent" the Flames are paying upfront in the tune of that $185M. If the City was forced to pay for the whole building, and then lease it out based on competitive rates ($3.5M per year in Edmonton) it would take the City 52.8 years to recoup that money. There is something in there for everyone to love, and something in there for everyone to hate.
|
Sorry, but I think that is a brutal deal for the City. How is $185 million (let's say $370 million including the ticket tax) a "helluva deal" for rent from the Flames when the building costs $550 million to develop (plus generates zero property tax). It's just the City taking a guaranteed and horrific loss on its investment.
And why on earth should the local hotel industry have to subsidize the Flames?
EDIT: for some reason, I thought you proposed a hotel tax.
In any event, my point remains the same.
In any event, municipalities are creature of provincial legislation. They only have whatever tax authority granted to them by the province.