"Of the "it would generate 168 new hotel jobs" as the News and Record reported of, how many will be displaced by construction that will have existed beforehand, and how many of the new jobs will actually be new, considering the current employment at the site?"
The reply from the City of Greensboro's Andy Scott;
"The Hotel would employ 168 (FTE’s) by the fifth year of operation.
...I do not have current employment numbers for the Elm Street Center or the parking deck.
The total revenue derived from the project by the City exceeds the incentive payment.
When you adjust the revenue by subtracting out the Business Improvement District taxes and the hotel motel taxes, which are statutorily limited in how they can be used – the remaining direct revenue would cover 70% of cost of the incentive.
The remaining cost would be covered by the parking fund."
Isn't that the same parking fund which is being tapped to cover any GPAC parking revenue losses?
Under "the terms of the City's Urban Development Guidelines", as cited in the agenda item, the project doesn't qualify under "Eligible Uses of City Assistance" and does not have an "Independent Financial Analysis".
And now it also appears that the project may not "create" 150 jobs as set out in the agenda item, because the jobs look like they include jobs that already exist on the property;
What Billy Jones wrote on Mike Barber's potential conflict of interest this morning;
"Will Wyndham Sponsorship Effect Mike Barber's Vote?"
City Council Agenda Item 25; "Investment Grant in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project "
There may be a very interesting debate this evening.