LOYAL AG said:

---

Of all the ridiculous things government does with our money using tourism dollars to help a tourism oriented business isn't the worst idea they've had particularly given the restrictions on how those funds can be used.

---

Duffel Pud said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Of all the ridiculous things government does with our money using tourism dollars to help a tourism oriented business isn't the worst idea they've had particularly given the restrictions on how those funds can be used.

---

What makes the city better experts on how to spend a business's money than the business they are taking a chunk of their profit from?

---

techno-ag said:

---

If there's one thing Santa's Wonderland does, it's bring in hotel occupancy tax $$$ to the city, along with other revenues.

I've got no problem with some of the HOT funds going back to them.

---

Richleau12 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Duffel Pud said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Of all the ridiculous things government does with our money using tourism dollars to help a tourism oriented business isn't the worst idea they've had particularly given the restrictions on how those funds can be used.

---

What makes the city better experts on how to spend a business's money than the business they are taking a chunk of their profit from?

---

Huh? They're basically giving SW a grant from the local hotel occupancy tax. They aren't taking a business' money. They're allocating tourism tax dollars to a tourism business.

Maybe I'm not following your question.

---

Because they are subsidizing an already successful business that does not need the influx of money. Instead they could use that money to help create new businesses that would increase quality of life for the citizens of college station as well as bring more folks to the city. They are mismanaging the funds, big shocker, and hurting the citizens of college station in the process. The return on investment is entirely moot. It would still be there as Santa's Wonderland isn't going anywhere. Use the funds to create new businesses to provide a differentiation of activities in the city. 600k is A LOT of money!

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Richleau12 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Duffel Pud said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Of all the ridiculous things government does with our money using tourism dollars to help a tourism oriented business isn't the worst idea they've had particularly given the restrictions on how those funds can be used.

---

What makes the city better experts on how to spend a business's money than the business they are taking a chunk of their profit from?

---

Huh? They're basically giving SW a grant from the local hotel occupancy tax. They aren't taking a business' money. They're allocating tourism tax dollars to a tourism business.

Maybe I'm not following your question.

---

Because they are subsidizing an already successful business that does not need the influx of money. Instead they could use that money to help create new businesses that would increase quality of life for the citizens of college station as well as bring more folks to the city. They are mismanaging the funds, big shocker, and hurting the citizens of college station in the process. The return on investment is entirely moot. It would still be there as Santa's Wonderland isn't going anywhere. Use the funds to create new businesses to provide a differentiation of activities in the city. 600k is A LOT of money!

---

Ok, if we're going to have a discussion someone besides me has to be willing to do some homework before they post. The bolded part isn't a legal use of hotel tax money. Right now I feel like everyone is knee jerk reacting to the city spending money and just wants something different but they aren't spending the time necessary to figure out what that might look like.

So far it looks to me like what they're doing with this money is a pretty good use of it.

---

Hornbeck said:

---

Pretty much. $600k for "advertising" to people that were going to come here anyway.

---

nthomas99 said:

---

Is it outside money though?

My intuition is that it's similar to property taxes where some say "it's only people who own homes" but inevitably this gets passed on to renters as the property owners (and really the market) have to work it into lease pricing. Without taxes, the equilibrium point would likely be somewhere in the middle, leaving some money in renters pocket but add a little more to the investor as well. Plus, who is to say visitors don't spend a little more money at B/CS business if they're not paying taxes?

At least that's how I see it - I'm admittedly biased as I have to collect and pay HOT on a few furnished properties I have when folks stay for less than 30 days.

I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out... if we're struggling to spend designated funds from taxes so much we're subsiding arguably the largest cash cow in the history of BCS, maybe, just maybe, we should just tax less.

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

nthomas99 said:

---

Is it outside money though?

My intuition is that it's similar to property taxes where some say "it's only people who own homes" but inevitably this gets passed on to renters as the property owners (and really the market) have to work it into lease pricing. Without taxes, the equilibrium point would likely be somewhere in the middle, leaving some money in renters pocket but add a little more to the investor as well. Plus, who is to say visitors don't spend a little more money at B/CS business if they're not paying taxes?

At least that's how I see it - I'm admittedly biased as I have to collect and pay HOT on a few furnished properties I have when folks stay for less than 30 days.

I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out... if we're struggling to spend designated funds from taxes so much we're subsiding arguably the largest cash cow in the history of BCS, maybe, just maybe, we should just tax less.

---

How do you know Santa's Wonderland is a cash cow? How much have they invested over their existence to build that place? I'm guessing it's low eight figures. That's one hell of an investment for a place that generates revenue six weeks a year. What's their annual payroll? Seasonal payroll? How much do they pay for the shuttle busses and off site parking? Off duty police directing traffic and inside the park? How much do they spend on nationwide advertising to draw in people from coast to coast?

I'm sure it's a profitable business or we wouldn't be having this conversation but you and I have no way of knowing how profitable. I'm not being rude, just stating what I believe are facts. I know the answer to a couple of the above questions and they aren't small numbers. That place is open 46 days this year. Feels like a pretty big investment for 46 days of revenue.

---

Hornbeck said:

---

As we have seen time and time again, hard hitting journalism is just not something that's done in the microplex. The news media have a gentleman's agreement to not get in the face of the cities, the county, or the college. I don't know what the media outlets get in return for that agreement, but I'd guess it's courtesy heads up when something is breaking, and I see several folks stepping down from their media position to take a job in PR or public info at one of those entities.

---

Richleau12 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

nthomas99 said:

---

Is it outside money though?

My intuition is that it's similar to property taxes where some say "it's only people who own homes" but inevitably this gets passed on to renters as the property owners (and really the market) have to work it into lease pricing. Without taxes, the equilibrium point would likely be somewhere in the middle, leaving some money in renters pocket but add a little more to the investor as well. Plus, who is to say visitors don't spend a little more money at B/CS business if they're not paying taxes?

At least that's how I see it - I'm admittedly biased as I have to collect and pay HOT on a few furnished properties I have when folks stay for less than 30 days.

I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out... if we're struggling to spend designated funds from taxes so much we're subsiding arguably the largest cash cow in the history of BCS, maybe, just maybe, we should just tax less.

---

How do you know Santa's Wonderland is a cash cow? How much have they invested over their existence to build that place? I'm guessing it's low eight figures. That's one hell of an investment for a place that generates revenue six weeks a year. What's their annual payroll? Seasonal payroll? How much do they pay for the shuttle busses and off site parking? Off duty police directing traffic and inside the park? How much do they spend on nationwide advertising to draw in people from coast to coast?

I'm sure it's a profitable business or we wouldn't be having this conversation but you and I have no way of knowing how profitable. I'm not being rude, just stating what I believe are facts. I know the answer to a couple of the above questions and they aren't small numbers. That place is open 46 days this year. Feels like a pretty big investment for 46 days of revenue.

---

Dude, it's the largest Santa theme park in the world.

You seem to have quite a lot of interest and knowledge of this business and by judging, as others have stated, at the ever expanding footprint of the business, you can't convince me they aren't doing well. I'd like to know where the money is going. I don't believe they spent all that money on a sign in the park with a QR code that directs folks to businesses in the city. Which businesses? Do the businesses also have to pay the city for the advertising in the park? Are the businesses featured picked out of a hat? This seems odd, doesn't add up in the slightest and if we had real reporters in this town, we would know more as questions would be asked.

From what it sounds like and I have no clue, but it seems as the city might be picking up the tab for SW's advertising budget so SW is clear to sink more money into development. I'm not a fan of cities picking and choosing the victors. I imagine a lot of businesses could do well with advertising budgets like that. Again, I have no idea, but these are questions that feel needed to be asked and answered. Come on KBTX or the Eagle. Follow up and do your job!

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Richleau12 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

nthomas99 said:

---

Is it outside money though?

My intuition is that it's similar to property taxes where some say "it's only people who own homes" but inevitably this gets passed on to renters as the property owners (and really the market) have to work it into lease pricing. Without taxes, the equilibrium point would likely be somewhere in the middle, leaving some money in renters pocket but add a little more to the investor as well. Plus, who is to say visitors don't spend a little more money at B/CS business if they're not paying taxes?

At least that's how I see it - I'm admittedly biased as I have to collect and pay HOT on a few furnished properties I have when folks stay for less than 30 days.

I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out... if we're struggling to spend designated funds from taxes so much we're subsiding arguably the largest cash cow in the history of BCS, maybe, just maybe, we should just tax less.

---

How do you know Santa's Wonderland is a cash cow? How much have they invested over their existence to build that place? I'm guessing it's low eight figures. That's one hell of an investment for a place that generates revenue six weeks a year. What's their annual payroll? Seasonal payroll? How much do they pay for the shuttle busses and off site parking? Off duty police directing traffic and inside the park? How much do they spend on nationwide advertising to draw in people from coast to coast?

I'm sure it's a profitable business or we wouldn't be having this conversation but you and I have no way of knowing how profitable. I'm not being rude, just stating what I believe are facts. I know the answer to a couple of the above questions and they aren't small numbers. That place is open 46 days this year. Feels like a pretty big investment for 46 days of revenue.

---

Dude, it's the largest Santa theme park in the world.

You seem to have quite a lot of interest and knowledge of this business and by judging, as others have stated, at the ever expanding footprint of the business, you can't convince me they aren't doing well. I'd like to know where the money is going. I don't believe they spent all that money on a sign in the park with a QR code that directs folks to businesses in the city. Which businesses? Do the businesses also have to pay the city for the advertising in the park? Are the businesses featured picked out of a hat? This seems odd, doesn't add up in the slightest and if we had real reporters in this town, we would know more as questions would be asked.

From what it sounds like and I have no clue, but it seems as the city might be picking up the tab for SW's advertising budget so SW is clear to sink more money into development. I'm not a fan of cities picking and choosing the victors. I imagine a lot of businesses could do well with advertising budgets like that. Again, I have no idea, but these are questions that feel needed to be asked and answered. Come on KBTX or the Eagle. Follow up and do your job!

---

I'm generally not a fan of government picking winners and losers either. In this case I really do see it as the city facilitating the growth of what is probably the #2 tourism driver in this town behind A&M and given the restrictions on the use of HOT I think spending $150k/year to generate $200k in HOT plus whatever other economic impact they can attribute to that company isn't a bad investment. But reasonable people can disagree on whether that's the right mindset or not.

As to what I know I gotta tread lightly to some degree here. I don't know specifics to SW but I do know enough about some of the things they're doing to make some educated guesses and based off what I think I know this is a nice revenue stream for them but it's not completely offsetting anything substantial. What I would hope is happening is the city is requiring SW to spend those funds to develop future attractions in the park to keep people coming back so that the 20k hotel rooms I assumed above becomes 22k next year, etc. I really hope it's not just a handout to the bottom line with really no expectations but that's just me speculating. This is COCS so who really knows what was negotiated.

---

techno-ag said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Richleau12 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

nthomas99 said:

---

Is it outside money though?

My intuition is that it's similar to property taxes where some say "it's only people who own homes" but inevitably this gets passed on to renters as the property owners (and really the market) have to work it into lease pricing. Without taxes, the equilibrium point would likely be somewhere in the middle, leaving some money in renters pocket but add a little more to the investor as well. Plus, who is to say visitors don't spend a little more money at B/CS business if they're not paying taxes?

At least that's how I see it - I'm admittedly biased as I have to collect and pay HOT on a few furnished properties I have when folks stay for less than 30 days.

I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out... if we're struggling to spend designated funds from taxes so much we're subsiding arguably the largest cash cow in the history of BCS, maybe, just maybe, we should just tax less.

---

How do you know Santa's Wonderland is a cash cow? How much have they invested over their existence to build that place? I'm guessing it's low eight figures. That's one hell of an investment for a place that generates revenue six weeks a year. What's their annual payroll? Seasonal payroll? How much do they pay for the shuttle busses and off site parking? Off duty police directing traffic and inside the park? How much do they spend on nationwide advertising to draw in people from coast to coast?

I'm sure it's a profitable business or we wouldn't be having this conversation but you and I have no way of knowing how profitable. I'm not being rude, just stating what I believe are facts. I know the answer to a couple of the above questions and they aren't small numbers. That place is open 46 days this year. Feels like a pretty big investment for 46 days of revenue.

---

Dude, it's the largest Santa theme park in the world.

You seem to have quite a lot of interest and knowledge of this business and by judging, as others have stated, at the ever expanding footprint of the business, you can't convince me they aren't doing well. I'd like to know where the money is going. I don't believe they spent all that money on a sign in the park with a QR code that directs folks to businesses in the city. Which businesses? Do the businesses also have to pay the city for the advertising in the park? Are the businesses featured picked out of a hat? This seems odd, doesn't add up in the slightest and if we had real reporters in this town, we would know more as questions would be asked.

From what it sounds like and I have no clue, but it seems as the city might be picking up the tab for SW's advertising budget so SW is clear to sink more money into development. I'm not a fan of cities picking and choosing the victors. I imagine a lot of businesses could do well with advertising budgets like that. Again, I have no idea, but these are questions that feel needed to be asked and answered. Come on KBTX or the Eagle. Follow up and do your job!

---

I'm generally not a fan of government picking winners and losers either. In this case I really do see it as the city facilitating the growth of what is probably the #2 tourism driver in this town behind A&M and given the restrictions on the use of HOT I think spending $150k/year to generate $200k in HOT plus whatever other economic impact they can attribute to that company isn't a bad investment. But reasonable people can disagree on whether that's the right mindset or not.

As to what I know I gotta tread lightly to some degree here. I don't know specifics to SW but I do know enough about some of the things they're doing to make some educated guesses and based off what I think I know this is a nice revenue stream for them but it's not completely offsetting anything substantial. What I would hope is happening is the city is requiring SW to spend those funds to develop future attractions in the park to keep people coming back so that the 20k hotel rooms I assumed above becomes 22k next year, etc. I really hope it's not just a handout to the bottom line with really no expectations but that's just me speculating. This is COCS so who really knows what was negotiated.

---

Well said. If the tourists stay here longer, they spend here longer. Seems like a good use of HOT funds since they're so restricted anyway.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not a fan of cities picking and choosing the victors. I imagine a lot of businesses could do well with advertising budgets like that. Again, I have no idea, but these are questions that feel needed to be asked and answered. Come on KBTX or the Eagle. Follow up and do your job!

---

woodiewood1 said:

---

My first question and maybe Bob can answer it, is there and annual list of entities that were given some HOT tax either in monetary payments, tax abatements or other services of value?

---