A recent decision by the Amarillo City Council and Downtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) No. 1 board has brought a downtown hotel incentive into the spotlight, raising questions about transparency, process, and the best use of public resources. At the center of the discussion is the reassignment of a long-standing property-tax rebate agreement for the downtown Courtyard by Marriott, a situation that underscores the broader challenges of municipal development incentives.
The Origins of the Incentive
The incentive in question dates back to 2008, when Amarillo Hospitality LLC received approval for a 20-year property-tax reimbursement designed to support the development of a 108-room Courtyard by Marriott hotel in downtown Amarillo. Structured through TIRZ No. 1, the agreement reimbursed 90% of property taxes, capped at $1.6 million. The hotel, which included a restaurant, 7,300 square feet of public space, a business center, fitness area, and parking garage, was completed and opened in 2010.
The first rebate was paid in 2011. In 2021, the agreement was reassigned to Summit Hotel Properties. Now, the City Council has approved a second reassignment to 724 South Polk Street Operating LLC, owned by Kevin Nelson, husband of former Amarillo Mayor Ginger Nelson.
Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Drew Brassfield emphasized that the reassignment does not involve additional funding or extensions to the original timeline. As of the latest records, roughly $808,000 in rebates have already been paid, leaving around $849,000 and six years remaining under the original cap.
Process Versus Outcome: The City Council Debate
The City Council’s discussion reflected a common tension in local governance: the difference between procedural integrity and the practical outcome of a decision. While the Council voted to approve the reassignment, Mayor Stanley cast the sole dissenting vote. His objection was not to the incentive itself, but to the way the reassignment process was handled.
“There’s a proper order for asking permission to assign something that’s contractually obligated,” Stanley explained. “When that order isn’t followed, I can’t endorse it. My responsibility is to make sure our process stays transparent and consistent.”
He elaborated that the sale should have been presented to the council before finalization. “If Summit had come to us first and asked for approval before signing their sale, I would’ve been fine with it. But when you sign the deal and come afterward saying, ‘Approve this or else,’ that’s not the right way to do business,” Stanley said.
Stanley stressed that his vote was based on principle. “I have to be able to stand behind every vote I cast. If the process isn’t right, I can’t support it — even if the outcome is.”
This distinction highlights a critical point: in local government, the perceived fairness and transparency of a process can be just as important as the actual decision being made. Even a beneficial policy can erode public trust if it appears to bypass standard procedures.
TIRZ Board Approval and Public Scrutiny
The TIRZ board approved the reassignment in a 4–1 vote on October 9. The lone dissent came from Amarillo ISD board member Tom Warren II, who expressed concern over whether the hotel had met its original performance standards. “There’s still a lack of clarity on performance standards,” Warren said. “I don’t believe we should approve this without a complete review.”
The board meeting itself was contentious, with a standing-room-only crowd of hotel owners and residents. Many questioned whether a profitable downtown property still required public incentives. Kevin Nelson, whose company seeks to acquire the property, addressed the board directly, stressing that his financing depended on the reassignment.
“This is going to be financially catastrophic!” Nelson shouted at one point, expressing frustration at the board’s deliberations. He clarified that delaying or denying the reassignment could jeopardize his financing and potentially expose the city to legal risk for breaching the contract. Nelson also pledged approximately $2 million in renovations to bring the Courtyard up to current Marriott standards, emphasizing his commitment to downtown Amarillo.
Opposition from Local Hoteliers
Local hoteliers were vocal in their opposition, reflecting broader concerns about fairness and resource allocation. Al Patel, owner of the America’s Best Value Inn, questioned why profitable downtown properties continue to receive incentives.
“Everybody would like some help, and we don’t understand why they’re still incentivizing deals that absolutely need no help,” Patel said. He pointed out that the Courtyard has already received over $1.2 million in rebates and suggested that future public funding should target struggling areas, such as businesses along Interstate 40.
Patel’s comments reflect a larger tension in municipal economic development: balancing support for ongoing downtown investment with the need to direct limited public funds toward areas with greater need. In cities experiencing growth, prioritizing where incentives are applied is both politically sensitive and economically significant.
County Concerns and Fiscal Considerations
Potter County Commissioner John Coffee, also a member of the TIRZ board, voiced concerns about the county’s participation in the downtown incentive program. He questioned whether county funds could be better spent on critical infrastructure, citing a possible $200 million jail project as an example.
Despite reservations, Coffee voted in favor of the reassignment, citing contractual obligations. “At the end of the day, the city has a contract,” he said. “If we did not approve the request, the city would still have to pay those monies to the current owner.”
Coffee also indicated he would push the Potter County Commissioners’ Court to reevaluate its involvement in TIRZ No. 1. “Maybe TIRZ 1 has run its course,” he said. “If we continue the program, maybe we develop another area of town and not just keep pouring money into downtown.”
Lessons on Transparency and Incentive Policy
The controversy surrounding this incentive reassignment illustrates two important lessons for local governance:
The Importance of Procedural Integrity – Mayor Stanley’s objections highlight that even positive outcomes cannot fully mitigate the damage caused by perceived procedural lapses. Transparent, consistent processes are essential for maintaining public trust in government decisions.
Reevaluating Incentive Priorities – Debate among hoteliers, residents, and county officials raises a question: should long-standing incentive programs continue for profitable, established properties? Patel and Coffee suggest that funds could achieve a greater public good if directed toward underdeveloped areas or projects with higher community impact.
When Development Outpaces Policy
The situation in Amarillo is emblematic of a challenge faced by many cities: economic incentives that achieve their goal so effectively that they outlive their original purpose. TIRZ programs are designed to jumpstart investment in underdeveloped areas. In downtown Amarillo, however, the landscape has changed significantly since 2008. The district is now home to thriving hotels, restaurants, and public spaces.
Al Patel summarized the sentiment: “Downtown doesn’t need help anymore. The city should focus on where the real growth potential is — along I-40 and other parts of Amarillo.”
This perspective is common in cities where successful revitalization efforts make ongoing incentives redundant. The original purpose was to foster growth where private investment was hesitant; now, the challenge is ensuring that public funds continue to serve areas in genuine need.
The Role of Conflict of Interest Perceptions
Adding to the controversy is the fact that Kevin Nelson is married to former Mayor Ginger Nelson, who supported downtown redevelopment. While there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the optics are sensitive. Residents and business owners are right to scrutinize situations where personal connections intersect with public incentives, reinforcing the importance of transparency and procedural rigor.
Nelson defended his position, emphasizing his commitment to downtown investment and compliance with Marriott standards. “We’re local owners who believe in downtown,” he said. “We’re committed to keeping the Courtyard up to brand and continuing to contribute to Amarillo’s growth.”
Balancing Development and Accountability
The debate over the Courtyard incentive underscores a universal challenge in municipal governance: balancing the desire to encourage development with the need for accountability. Proponents argue that ongoing investment in downtown sustains economic growth and preserves property standards. Critics, however, question the necessity of public support for properties already profitable, highlighting fairness and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Decisions about property-tax incentives should consider both economic rationale and the integrity of the process. Clear, consistent procedures protect the city legally and help maintain public confidence.
Next Steps and Broader Implications
The TIRZ board’s approval is not the final step. The measure moves to the Amarillo City Council for further consideration, which took place on October 14. If approved, Nelson’s company would assume the remaining value of the rebate, estimated at $800,000 to $900,000, through the program’s expiration in 2031.
The outcome may influence future downtown incentives, guiding how the city prioritizes development funding and the extent to which public scrutiny shapes the allocation of taxpayer dollars.
Common-Sense Takeaways
Economic incentives should act like training wheels: helpful at the start, but meant to come off once stability and success are achieved. If incentives remain attached indefinitely, they cease fostering growth and risk distorting the market.
Downtown Amarillo’s success is undeniable, but public policy must evolve alongside conditions on the ground. Incentives once needed to spark revitalization should not continue indefinitely for projects that no longer require them. Fiscal responsibility, fairness, and procedural integrity should guide these decisions.
As Commissioner Coffee suggested, perhaps it is time to expand the scope of development programs beyond downtown, ensuring that the benefits of public investment reach all areas of the city that could use a boost.
Conclusion
The reassignment of the Courtyard by Marriott incentive in Amarillo is more than a hotel sale or a rebate transfer; it is a case study in balancing development, accountability, and transparency in local government. Mayor Stanley’s principled dissent, concerns from local hoteliers, and questions from county officials all highlight the need for careful oversight and deliberate policy evaluation.
As Amarillo continues to invest in its downtown, future incentive programs can benefit from this debate by emphasizing transparency, aligning resources with areas of greatest need, and ensuring that both process and outcome serve the public interest.
In the end, the Courtyard debate is a reminder that in local governance, how decisions are made often matters as much as what decisions are made. By applying common sense, fairness, and fiscal responsibility, Amarillo has the opportunity to balance growth with good governance — ensuring that downtown success benefits both private investors and the broader community.
