My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-28-1999
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
01-28-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2018 5:29:12 AM
Creation date
8/20/2018 5:29:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV EDC
EDC Document Type
Council Packets
Date
1/28/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Kevin Carroll <br /> January 22, 1999 <br /> • Page 3 <br /> need to be acquired by the Developer to facilitate the Project will be committed to the Project. <br /> The existing debt against the Mermaid complex is approximately $750,000.00, the amount used <br /> to improve the existing bowling complex in 1998. This nominal debt that exists against the <br /> Mermaid is a result of the Hall family's commitment to reduced debt against properties to <br /> enhance operational goals. <br /> REVISED AND RESTATED PROJECT COSTS <br /> The Developer's consultant, John F. Seibert, has revised the hotel and banquet project costs to <br /> reflect the current project scope and expenses incurred by the Developer. The costs do not <br /> identify any expense incurred by the Developer in connection with acquiring the existing land and <br /> Mermaid complex. Because Moundsvista, Inc., the Mermaid, Inc. and the Developer are related <br /> parties, the economics of that transaction are not relevant in considering the level of commitment <br /> of the Halls, except to state that the Developer could meet a substantial requirement of cash <br /> equity towards the Project, but to do so would only be to unnecessarily encumber the existing <br /> Mermaid complex with debt the proceeds of which would go to a related party. The only result <br /> of such a transaction requirement would be to require the Halls to unnecessarily incur expenses <br /> • related to financing that would not directly benefit the Project. In other words, the Halls could <br /> easily borrow significantmonies against the existing Mermaid complex for the purposes of re- <br /> committing that as equity to the Project, but for the purposes of good lending business practices, <br /> the Halls would simply be moving the asset from its right pocket to its left pocket. The cash <br /> equity requirement should not unnecessarily penalize the Halls since they have endeavored to <br /> keep the debt on their existing project as low as possible. <br /> PROJECT REVENUE SPINOFF <br /> Mr. Seibert has recently acquired the summary financial data with respect to the average daily <br /> dollars spent by a patron of a hotel in the north metro area. For the year 1996, such information <br /> reflects-that the-average-expenditure per party ger day was$188.00.It-is projected that the per -— <br /> diem expenditure will be raised to $200.00 per day in the calendar 1999. The revenue expended <br /> by a visiting party to the hotel, it is broken down in the following manner: <br /> 29.6% Lodging <br /> 23.6% Food and Beverage <br /> 16.6% Transportation <br /> 16.2% Entertainment and Recreation <br /> 14.0% Other-Retail <br /> 411 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.