I wish to thank the person who contributed this valuable information.
"Minutes from New Albany Redevelopment Commission, dated November 12, 2001 (page 2) states, IN PART.
The Director (Carl Malysz) brought attention to the State Street Parking Garage and stated general concerns regarding the Bonds. One concern the Director stated was that the bond payments are accelerating and becoming substantial. The Director explained that there will be a greater implication on EDIT funds. The Director also stated certain complications with TIF and EDIT revenues, as follows:
- The Parking Garage finished a year or two prior to the bank building. The TIF proceeds started later than anticipated in the underwriting. From '98 thru '01 there was an accumulated TIF shortage of $256,000.
- The bank was originally to have five floors completed and occupied. There are two floors that were left unfinished so that the assessed value (av) of the building is less than what was estimated, resulting in less TIF funds. (BTW, sure looks as if they finished those two top floors now; as they being taxed now?)
- The original assessed value included a bank drive-through, but the site could not accommodate it. The New Albany Redevelopment Commission should add the drive-through to the TIF district to capture additional TIF proceeds.
- EDIT funds are budgeted to be payable for a particular year. The Director suggested that the city budget the EDIT funds and have them available to Redevelopment Commission before the payments are due. This gives the resources available on time without scrambling around for the funds to make the payments. In order to get on a valid schedule, an appeal has to be made to the Council and the Controller to receive the EDIT funds available not to be current with the payment.
- A lease Rental Reserve was required in the bond agreement. This costs around $40,000 a year for five years or $200,000.
The Director noted that in order to be current by the end of this year, there needs to be approximately $580,000 or EDIT funds allocated to the Redevelopment Commission. The Director also stated that by the time the project is paid off, WE WILL PAY APPROXIMATELY $3,696,350 OF EDIT INTO THE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT. The Director stated that once the bonds were paid off, THEN TIF FUNDS CAN BE COLLECTED TO REFUND THE CITY THE EDIT CONTRIBUTED, IN RETURN, "THE CITY CAN USE THOSE FUNDS FOR OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS".
Other documentation includes a document dated 8/21/07 from Cyndi Kraus, Financial/Compliance Manager and John Rosenbarger, Director of NARC to the CITY COUNCIL stating IN PART:
Per your request received August 17, 2007 I'm providing the following State Street Garage Operating and TIF information.
1. State Street Parking Garage Operating Fund
Year 2005 Receipts $82,874.65 Expenses $69,118.24
Year 2006 Receipts $76,772.71 Expenses $54,306.52
Year 2007 (thru 7/07) Receipts $32,828.40 Expenses $22,651.74
2. Total TIF captured between 1999 and 2006 is $1,004,949.31
3. Total Debt Service paid with EDIT is $3,613,698.46
Please pay the monies back of England can have some money to work with Redevelopment. PLEASE?"
I must add an additional "PLEASE" to this request. There are so many important projects in the works and the $3M+ is desperately needed.
16 comments:
What in the world is going on with the Parking Garage Bonds ? Why are they putting up such a big storm about not having the Downtown TIF pay back the EDIT Funds used to pay off the Parking Garage Bonds ?
It would seem to be an intelligent answer for TIF to repay EDIT those
funds used to pay off the Garage Bonds. Then.... the EDIT Funds could be used for repairs needed all over the city.
Are they saying that there is a specific sentence in the bond document that says,
"DOWNTOWN TIF
WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO REPAY THE
EDIT MONEY LOANED TO THE DOWNTOWN TIF FOR THE GARAGE BONDS." ?????
Shirley,
You've misunderstood the situation.
The bond for the parking garage was initially approved by the Council so that it would be paid by both EDIT and TIF, with a majority coming from EDIT.
As stated in the notes, the bank didn't finish the top floors of its building as soon as expected. That means not as much TIF was collected as expected in the earliest years of the bond, hence the $256K shortfall mentioned.
The Council was asked to appropriate additional EDIT to cover that shortfall and the lease rental reserve. That total, according to the notes, was $580K.
The rest of the $3.6 million had already been allocated to the garage in the original bond agreement. It was neither extra nor a loan. Only the $580K was additional. The $3,696,350 mentioned was the total amount of EDIT spent on the garage including both the $3 million already pledged by the council and the additional $580K to be requested.
You'll also note that Mr. Malaysz suggested that the money ($580K) COULD be paid back. Just because he mentioned it in a Redevelopment meeting DOES NOT mean that the Council voted to set it up that way. The notes posted mean only that it was discussed as a possibility outside of a Council meeting.
When Dan Coffey brought a bogus resolution forward to pay more than $3 million from TIF to EDIT last year based on this rumor instead of actually doing his homework (he never even requested information about the garage bond), Mr. Rosenbarger offered to provide Coffey and the entire Council with the original bond documentation showing his error. Coffey, of course, refused.
Since that time, the long disproven rumor of a $3 million loan has continued to circulate, usually from anonymous sources who, like Coffey, are more interested in political turmoil than the truth.
Note also that the same anonymous gripes continue to claim on your blog, as did Coffey at the time, that our tax dollars subsidize the operation of the parking garage.
Their own notes here prove them wrong, showing that the garage actually turns a small profit each year. They'll no doubt purposely forget that and go back to griping about subsidizing garage operations soon.
In short, why doesn't TIF pay back $3 million to EDIT? Because it doesn't owe EDIT $3 million and never did.
Besides, EDIT money can be spent on anything that TIF can be used to finance. What's the point of continuing to demand the false repayment if the money can be spent on the important projects you mention anyway?
Because of the statement "Council and Edit monies". Council controls all monies, not Redevelopment. EDIT needs to be spent in areas other than the TIFs. We would probably have an entire Council which sat through all of this and the bet is all of them would state this is what was agreed to when EDIT was given to Redevelopment.
Council needs the EDIT back so Mayor England can resurface and do other work needed in areas other than all the TIF areas.
How someone who did not live here, did not pay these monies out of their pocket, did not attend meetings, can attack you or state things are false or "rumored"; let's call it "them living in lala land".
So glad an attorney no one knows can give taxpayers their "free" advice - we are not sure what their advice and experience is based on. 1/2 hour of Carl trying to get out of paying it (?).
How dare you, Shirley, address a taxpayer issue? We do not care to read Destination's new blog nor listen to his scripted radio talk show; and we certainly do not care who he likes, nor why, etc.
Good job. Thanks for the information.
Thanks but I cannot take credit for compiling this article. It was originally a comment posted in regard to a previous article and I reprinted it.
Of course I did ask the author if it was OK to reprint.
If the Parking Garage Bonds were issued in 2001, where have the bonds been kept for SAFEKEEPING ?
In whose hands are the bonds kept ?
Has the wording in the Parking Garage Bonds been TAMPERED with ?
The comment #1 at 5:14 PM talks about the Parking Garage Bonds like he has a copy in his hand.
Are they passing out Bond Copies to
the general public? WHERE CAN WE GET A COPY?
Why are they so RILED UP about
TIF REPAYING THE MONEY BACK TO EDIT?
Anon 8:01am,
Please forgive my ignorance, but could you further explain the following?
"How someone who did not live here, did not pay these monies out of their pocket, did not attend meetings, can attack you or state things are false or "rumored"; let's call it "them living in lala land".
So glad an attorney no one knows can give taxpayers their "free" advice - we are not sure what their advice and experience is based on. 1/2 hour of Carl trying to get out of paying it (?)."
It's Monday and not a good one at that. Thanks in advance for any explanation.
Very carefully.
LET'S GET OUT THE DICTIONARY.
In the article posted on Voice of The People, the sentence quotes the minutes of 2001 as:
"TIF funds CAN BE collected to refund the city the EDIT contributed."
Then, take a look at the comment posted July 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM.
The writer of that comment changed the word "CAN" to read "COULD."
___________________________________
WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
CAN = "to be able" ____________________________________
COULD= "smaller degree of possibility"
___________________________________
Oh good, word games.
Evidently the word "will" was not used either. There's more difference between "will" and "can", than "can" and "could".
Get the Council minutes out now, lol. We would like to watch this dance by the "protectors" of the City against taxpayers commence, and too get a ruling from the heads at State level. This EDIT issue is a known fact, not rumor. Please bring on the bond papers!
The last time that I checked, I pay a sustantial sum of taxes to New Albany, too. Next point?
NEXT POINT sIR,
IS THE TOP FLOOR STILL ISN'T COMPLETED. CARL MALYSZ PAID $250,000 FOR THE BUILDING AND LAND THAT WAS APPRAISED FOR ONLY $100,000. HOW DO YOU LIKE THOSE FACTS.
So what's your point iamhoosier?
Why are the Downtown people so afraid that Downtown TIF will have to pay back the money to EDIT Fund ?
The Garage is downtown and should be paid for by the Downtown TIF.
EDIT Funds can be used to pay for projects all over town.
DOWNTOWN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SO SELFISH AND STOP TRYING TO PREVENT THAT MONEY FROM BEING PAID BACK TO EDIT FUND.
Shirley
You wrote:
"Thanks but I cannot take credit for compiling this article. It was originally a comment posted in regard to a previous article and I reprinted it."
Did you reprint it because you agree with it and disagree with what Jeff wrote in response, or because you disagree and are just trying to provide both sides?
Which "side" do you feel is correct, and do you think it's important for someone to be correct?
Just curious.
Post a Comment