|
reprinted from:
Budget plan still
defies warning
By Anthony Millican; Staff Writer Despite warnings that hotel-room tax revenue is growing more slowly than expected, San Diego city government continues to predict robust growth in the financial pot for the downtown ballpark and a score of other programs. City Manager Michael Uberuaga's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 estimates that room tax revenue will increase 8 percent. That is almost double the current growth rate. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association has been critical of city room tax projections since the city premised ballpark financing on 8 percent annual growth over 30 years. The city's plan is to pay off up to $299 million in ballpark bonds with revenue from the charge on hotel stays. That charge is formally known as the transient occupancy tax, or TOT. In the fiscal year that ends June 30, the city expects that the tax will have generated $96.2 million, an increase of 4.5 percent over the previous year. However, city officials had expected more. They predicted that the tax would funnel $99.5 million into city coffers, an 8 percent increase. The shortfall came to light in a mid-year financial review. Pat Frazier, deputy city manager, said the shortfall will not last. Room tax revenue will grow 8 percent, in part because of the opening of two new downtown hotels, which had been delayed, she said. Still, the taxpayer association has cited slowing TOT growth as one more negative factor for bond-rating agencies and underwriters to consider when ballpark bonds are issued. Ballpark-related litigation is the chief concern. The city and Padres have won nine of 11 lawsuits, not including property condemnation cases. Yet, appeals threaten to further delay the sale of ballpark bonds, which was originally scheduled for January 2000. On Monday, a Superior Court judge is expected to issue a tentative ruling on one of the two lawsuits yet to be decided in the trial court. In this case, retired Del Mar developer Harvey Furgatch filed suit against the San Diego Unified Port District, contending that the port's planned $21 million purchase of four city blocks downtown would be an illegal gift to the city and the Padres. Attorneys for the city and the port are seeking to have the case thrown out on a technicality. Furgatch did not sue the city. That is a procedural error, said Les Girard, assistant city attorney. As an "indispensable party," the city also should have been individually named in the suit, he said. Furgatch's attorney, Stanley Zubel, characterized the city's attempt to dismiss the
case as "taxpayer-funded hubris." In the News |
