Monday, February 13

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 3
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 2
 

Almost Live: Rockets at Blazers

News So I'm having a bit of trouble with the picture, which is coming from my phone (I drew it on my way ... More

Feb 8, 2012 07:09 pm by CASEY JARMAN  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · News · Boon Or Boondoggle?
September 12th, 2007 NIGEL JAQUISS | News
 

Boon Or Boondoggle?

Check out the bill for 600 rooms near the convention center.

1 Comments
     
Tags:

IMAGE: Premshree Pillai WW photo manipulation

Metro has finally provided the first glimpse of what a publicly financed hotel for the agency’s troubled Oregon Convention Center would look like.

And it ain’t cheap.

Metro’s consultants last week pegged the total cost of the agency’s preferred option—a 600-room, publicly owned hotel—at $244 million. Nearly 90 percent, $215 million, would come from bonds issued by the agency.

That’s a lot of money to throw at a business—conventions—infamous for broken promises of economic development in cities from Pittsburgh to, well, Portland.

Metro officials acknowledge they will be betting the store if they move forward with such a hotel. The bonds would be repaid with hotel revenues and, if those revenues didn’t materialize, from taxpayers.

“Under currently available financial resources, Metro does not have the financial ability to adequately finance the project,” Metro chief financial officer Bill Stringer told a joint meeting last week of the Metro Council and its subsidiary agency, the Metropolitan Exposition Recreation Commission.

Len Bergstein, a representative of hoteliers opposed to a publicly subsidized hotel, called a presentation by Metro’s consultants part of a long-running “shell game.” “These numbers are based on projections developed by consultants who have been consistently wrong across the country,” Bergstein says.

Like everything surrounding the concept of a convention center hotel, how Metro got to the current proposal after about six months requires some explaining.

Earlier this year, the Portland Development Commission abandoned its 17-year quest for a convention center hotel. That decision by the city agency, which specializes in arranging creative financing for public projects, came after the Portland City Council balked at a projected subsidy of up to $90 million for a privately owned hotel.

PDC punted the project to Metro, which owns the convention center. Metro is in a tricky position. Although the agency expanded the convention center in 2003, national conventions have snubbed Portland. The number of attendee-days declined 41 percent last year to a total lower than in 2002, before the capacity expansion.

Nonetheless, Metro says it has confidence in its consultants’ projections that a hotel would lure large national conventions.

“We showed the numbers to people in the local hotel industry, and in most cases, the response was, they seemed reasonable,” says Metro general counsel Dan Cooper.

Why might public ownership be more viable than private? Cooper explains that, because a public owner would not need to earn the 20 to 30 percent profit required by private investors and could borrow money more cheaply, the project would cost less.

Currently, Cooper says, forecasts show an annual operating gap between revenues and expenses of about $1.5 million to $2 million.

Metro is exploring several options to fill that gap. These include dedicating all property taxes generated by the hotel into debt service, increasing MERC’s share of a regionwide hotel tax, and refinancing the current convention center debt.

Any such moves would require the approval of and possible financial assistance from the City of Portland, Multnomah County and perhaps even the state.

As Metro councilors observed last week, the agency would be shouldering a large risk for rewards that would accrue mostly to the private sector and other agencies.

Consultants KPMG estimate a 600-room convention center hotel would generate $54.5 million in local economic benefits and $2.5 million in new taxes annually. But the added revenue for the convention center is projected at only $940,000 a year, or about 5 percent of its annual mortgage payment.

Others are wary of such predictions.

City Commissioner Erik Sten, who, along with Mayor Tom Potter, killed PDC’s involvement, says Metro needs to tread carefully.

“After my experience with faulty projections on PGE Park and the tram, I’d be very reluctant to do a deal like this,” says Sten.

Metro’s next step comes Sept. 27, when councilors will decide whether to spend $600,000 to hammer out hard numbers for design and construction costs, now estimated at $168 million.

It’s unclear whether Metro will ultimately OK the project. Council president David Bragdon says any deal must protect Metro’s finances and provide net economic benefit. “It will be challenging,” Bragdon says.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
09.13.2007 at 06:15 Reply
Metro and PDC have to be completely nuts to think that anyone would allow them to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a speculative venture that comes out of taxpayer pockets - again.

It's nice that Eric Sten has learned at least a little bit from having pissed away $40+ million of our money on the doctors ski-lift.

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close