Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc
I thought it was the city that characterized its contribution as a loan to be paid back through property taxes, in order to make the city's part more palatable to voters.
|
I recall the characterization is the City would like to see some "up-side" from its contribution. Of course for the City, tax revenue pays for operating costs primarily. It's not really a mechanism for capital repayment, except explicitly in a CRL, but that tax revenue needs to be earmarked for that purpose. That the City was willing to entertain either rent or taxes says to me it wasn't about CRL repayment.
In any event, that aspect is actually negotiable since in the Municipal Government Act, professional sports facilities are one of the only commercial uses where market value assessment need not apply.