YOW Alt Hotel [1085 Airport Pkwy] | ?m | 7f | U/C

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

. . .

In the end if it gets built the city has 4,359,228 in "new property tax revenue" over the 25-year period.(Actually just a larger base to spread property tax over).

https://obj.ca/colonnade-bridgeport-...bells-corners/

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that the city is going to forgo the uplift in the property tax for the next 25 years.

In other words, the (roughly) $4M in property taxes is not new taxes, but the status quo. i.e., this $4M is the property tax revenue that the city would be getting over the next 25 years from the un-improved property. If the hotel were NOT built (therefore NOT increasing the property's value, and, thus, the property taxes to $17M over 25 years), then this $4M would continue to be the money received by the city during that time - assuming that nothing gets built for the entire 25 years.

That last bit is important. If the hotel is built now, then the city knows that it is forgoing about $13M over the next 25 years. But if the hotel is not built now, then staff is assuming that nothing will get built for the next 25 years.

Let's say that the passenger count of the airport continues to increase and a hotel does get built 3 years from now - without the city's 'help'. That would mean a property tax uplift, resulting in the $4M of 'base taxes PLUS the tax on the uplift for 22 years. This could mean an extra $11.5M of taxes over those 22 years.

A hotel has been planned for the past few years. Yes it was put on 'HOLD' while passenger numbers are low, but it is still in the plan. When passenger numbers increase, it will get built. That is my take.

Of course, the previous City Council has already put the grant program in place, so it is fair for the hotel to take advantage of it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that the city is going to forgo the uplift in the property tax for the next 25 years.

In other words, the (roughly) $4M in property taxes is not new taxes, but the status quo. i.e., this $4M is the property tax revenue that the city would be getting over the next 25 years from the un-improved property. If the hotel were NOT built (therefore NOT increasing the property's value, and, thus, the property taxes to $17M over 25 years), then this $4M would continue to be the money received by the city during that time - assuming that nothing gets built for the entire 25 years.

That last bit is important. If the hotel is built now, then the city knows that it is forgoing about $13M over the next 25 years. But if the hotel is not built now, then staff is assuming that nothing will get built for the next 25 years.

Let's say that the passenger count of the airport continues to increase and a hotel does get built 3 years from now - without the city's 'help'. That would mean a property tax uplift, resulting in the $4M of 'base taxes PLUS the tax on the uplift for 22 years. This could mean an extra $11.5M of taxes over those 22 years.

A hotel has been planned for the past few years. Yes it was put on 'HOLD' while passenger numbers are low, but it is still in the plan. When passenger numbers increase, it will get built. That is my take.

Of course, the previous City Council has already put the grant program in place, so it is fair for the hotel to take advantage of it.

That's a good way of putting it. These are always a bad deal for the City. It's like the Porsche dealership; they threatened to build it on Merivale if they didn't get the grant. Well maybe that would have been a good thing; we may have gotten a new Porsche dealership on Merivale, benefiting from the full tax increase and eventually Mark Motors may have sold for St. Laurent location to a developer who could have built actual housing.

If one building isn't built because they didn't get a tax break, well that space will probably be built elsewhere, at least when we're talking about common residential, commercial, industrial projects.

The City raises everyone's taxes by 2.5%-3% every year and then proceeds to giving tax breaks to millionaire business owners. It doesn't sit well with me.

Again, approve this one because the program exists, but all CIPs should be killed afterwards.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What's the dilemma? They approved the CIP last summer. Was the community opposing the CIP proposal last year? You can't just start opposing it now. This is getting pretty common that people only start complaining when it starts to effect them. Few people complained about the new Civic Hospital site until 5 years later when the hospital submitted an application. No one complained about the Montreal Road CIP until a grant was requested for a Porsche dealership.

And having some clause that requests "proof" something wouldn't be built without it is non-sensicle. You can't prove that.

Either have CIPs, don't or make them ultra specific (residential only, x% affordable housing, must include grocery store).

Exactly. This situation is cut and dried. If anybody doesn't like the doling out of funds via a CIP, then fight the instigation of the CIP, not the recipients of the program.

[waterloowarrior]

The mayor will not be supporting the CIP grant for the hotel. Also interesting that staff are working on a review of the CIP program.
https://twitter.com/_MarkSutcliffe/s...30159975120908

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The mayor will not be supporting the CIP grant for the hotel. Also interesting that staff are working on a review of the CIP program.
https://twitter.com/_MarkSutcliffe/s...30159975120908

I know that a lot of CIPs and Brownfield grant programs were paused, but was this one paused?

[roger1818]

It always bothers me when elected officials say things like, "I have heard repeatedly from residents, during the election campaign and recently, that they don't want ..." Maybe it is true that many people said that, but it comes across as disingenuous.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It always bothers me when elected officials say things like, "I have heard repeatedly from residents, during the election campaign and recently, that they don't want ..." Maybe it is true that many people said that, but it comes across as disingenuous.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying. Or when they say something like "Karen from Kanata told me her kids couldn't get to hockey practice because there wasn't enough parking". Half the time, it's B.S. Karen from Kanata or "generic name from middle class suburb" doesn't exist.

[Harley613]

I'm just gonna plug my ears and sing loudly and be happy we are getting an Airport Terminal Hotel. We can finally aspire to be more like Winnipeg with their three terminal hotels

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yeah, it's pretty annoying. Or when they say something like "Karen from Kanata told me her kids couldn't get to hockey practice because there wasn't enough parking". Half the time, it's B.S. Karen from Kanata or "generic name from middle class suburb" doesn't exist.

The thing is too, even IF they heard these things from the loudest people to share their opinions…these people are not city planners nor experts in any of these things.

They’re often simply people reacting with ‘not with muh tax money’ and have no comprehension of what investment may reap. Brownfield grants for instance…

[rocketphish]

Mayor Sutcliffe opposes $13M tax break for new airport hotel
"I was elected to represent the interests of the taxpayers and residents of Ottawa and I stand with them in opposing this tax break."

Liam Fox, Ottawa Citizen
Published Apr 03, 2023 • Last updated 13 hours ago • 2 minute read

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe is challenging an application for a $13-million tax break for a new hotel connected to the Ottawa International Airport ahead of a vote by city council members at the finance and corporate services committee.

“I support the airport authority and its plan to turn Ottawa into a travel hub. But the city is facing significant financial pressures and there is the prospect of economic uncertainty in the months ahead,” Sutcliffe wrote on Twitter. “Using taxpayers’ dollars to pay for this hotel is not reasonable at this time and doesn’t respect the wishes of residents.

“These decisions are difficult and I respect the work of the airport and others in preparing the application. I was elected to represent the interests of the taxpayers and residents of Ottawa and I stand with them in opposing this tax break.”

The 180-room hotel proposed by Germain Hotels, supported by a community improvement plan (CIP) introduced in the final period of the previous council term to encourage economic development in underused federal lands surrounding the airport, has faced contemplation from council and scrutiny from residents.

In a city staff report to committee, it was estimated $17.4 million in increases to the municipal property tax would be generated over 25 years, with the city receiving about $4.4 million and forgiving up to $13.1 million in the proposed grant.

The planned eight-storey hotel, including a restaurant, meeting spaces, lobby workstation and fitness room, would produce 50 full-time jobs, as stated in the report.

Sutcliffe is not the only committee member opposing the proposed tax break.

Capital ward Coun. Shawn Menard was one of several members voting against the CIP program last term.

“The city needs to stop spending resident funds in this way,” Menard wrote in a message to this newspaper March 27, citing a recently developed Porsche dealership on Montreal Road that received $2.9 million in tax breaks.

“Had we not provided $2.9 million to the Porsche dealership in tax breaks, and they located elsewhere in the city, we would have received that $2.9 million,” he said in a Twitter reply to Sutcliffe’s statement today.

The finance and corporate services committee, chaired by Sutcliffe, will vote on the motion to grant the tax break in Tuesday’s meeting at city hall.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-airport-hotel

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I'm just gonna plug my ears and sing loudly and be happy we are getting an Airport Terminal Hotel. We can finally aspire to be more like Winnipeg with their three terminal hotels

That's because nobody wants to be in Winnipeg

[Arcologist]

I agree with others that it seems unjust to increase taxes on everyday city residents by 2-3% every year while giving huge tax breaks to the already rich. But, if this program is in place, we can't fault the developer for wanting to take advantage of it. I'm sure we'd all do the same if a program was available for us whereby we could pay lower taxes.

Having said that though, I think we need to kill all these tax grants. They're just not fair.

More importantly, if Alt Hotels is getting a $13M tax break here, then they could sure as hell give us something a little better looking in exchange!!!

[roger1818]

I haven't seen the numbers, but Sutcliffe's position on this sounds pennywise but pound foolish to me. There are both direct and indirect economic advantages to having an airport hotel. Having a Porsche dealership, not so much. Either he is a fool or is grandstanding to try and make himself look good (most likely both).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I haven't seen the numbers, but Sutcliffe's position on this sounds pennywise but pound foolish to me. There are both direct and indirect economic advantages to having an airport hotel. Having a Porsche dealership, not so much. Either he is a fool or is grandstanding to try and make himself look good (most likely both).

That seems harsh. A hotel attached to the terminal is convenient but certainly not a game changer and will compete with other hotels much more than generate new business. Will literally anyone decide to drive to Ottawa rather than Montreal because now the hotel is 500 meters closer saving a shuttle ride? I suppose forcing the Hilton and other more distant hotels to cut their rates might encourage some fence sitters but there are much better uses of $13 million. Add it to the pile we will need to give to the Senators for example who do create huge spin-off benefits to the city.

[Tesladom]

I'm flying through SFO overnight in the summer, they don't have a hotel at the airport. Many large airports do not either.

Not saying it wouldn't be nice to have, but...

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

I'm flying through SFO overnight in the summer, they don't have a hotel at the airport. Many large airports do not either.

Not saying it wouldn't be nice to have, but...

SFO has a Grand Hyatt attached to the terminals and probably a hundred other hotels encircling the airport

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That seems harsh. A hotel attached to the terminal is convenient but certainly not a game changer and will compete with other hotels much more than generate new business. Will literally anyone decide to drive to Ottawa rather than Montreal because now the hotel is 500 meters closer saving a shuttle ride? I suppose forcing the Hilton and other more distant hotels to cut their rates might encourage some fence sitters but there are much better uses of $13 million. Add it to the pile we will need to give to the Senators for example who do create huge spin-off benefits to the city.

You are assuming that the airport hotel will only be used by people who live out of town and are driving to the airport, and that the only advantage YOW would offer them is a shorter drive. Your 500m comment also assumes that no-one lives west of Ottawa, where you have to drive past Ottawa to get to YUL.

There are many other uses for an airport hotel by people flying either in or out of Ottawa. An airport hotel makes early morning departures and late night arrivals more palatable, especially for visitors who need to stay in a hotel anyway. This makes it easier for the airport authority to market YOW to the airlines, and more flights, means more visitors, which means more money fed into the local economy.

But silly servant Karen from Orleans doesn't care about the local economy, as her job is secure, and more visitors means longer lines at her favourite restaurant. Besides, she drives to YUL when going on her annual sun destination vacation, so doesn't care about YOW.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are assuming that the airport hotel will only be used by people who live out of town and are driving to the airport, and that the only advantage YOW would offer them is a shorter drive. Your 500m comment also assumes that no-one lives west of Ottawa, where you have to drive past Ottawa to get to YUL.

There are many other uses for an airport hotel by people flying either in or out of Ottawa. An airport hotel makes early morning departures and late night arrivals more palatable, especially for visitors who need to stay in a hotel anyway. This makes it easier for the airport authority to market YOW to the airlines, and more flights, means more visitors, which means more money fed into the local economy.

But silly servant Karen from Orleans doesn't care about the local economy, as her job is secure, and more visitors means longer lines at her favourite restaurant. Besides, she drives to YUL when going on her annual sun destination vacation, so doesn't care about YOW.

I am talking about the 500 meters to the current airport hotel. I don't doubt it would have a use but it's not so significant it warrants public funds.

[phil235]

We made a decision that we wanted to drive investment to the airport area and set up a program to do that. This is an investment in the airport area that fits the criteria of the program. It's disappointing that politics are creeping into the decision-making. Whatever the merits of the program (I think it has some obvious merit in the case of an airport that is trying to grow its destinations), this debate by politicians over whether a hotel is a good investment is exactly how not to make good policy.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I am talking about the 500 meters to the current airport hotel. I don't doubt it would have a use but it's not so significant it warrants public funds.

The closest hotels to the airport are about a kilometer away, but without any sidewalks connecting the two, the vast majority will end up having to either take a taxi/Uber (if you can get one for such a short ride) or use the hotel's shuttle, which means waiting around for your connection. Having a short walk between your hotel room and the terminal (likely in a climate controlled environment), is a significant advantage when dealing with early morning departures and late night arrivals.

As for how significant the benefit is, that wasn't Sutcliffe's argument. All he said was Karen didn't want the city to spend any money on any private infrastructure.