Battle looms over Scribner Place; Bond guarantee irks New Albany leaders, by Ben Zion Hershberg, Louisville Courier-Journal (short shelf life on C-J links).
Speaking of the perpetual quest for information on the part of certain City Council members, who echo Bono's oft-stated view that he still hasn't found what he's looking for, the following is an unexpectedly informative comment thread from Speak Out Loud NA, which heretofore has served primarily to “empower” the voiceless outrage of generally anonymous citizens (who’ve donned a variety of masks and taken assorted guises, many emanating in spluttering clusters of semi-legible comments posted in the early morning hours, and probably from the same IP address).
Whiskey River, take my mind ...
While perusing these comments, note that sense and sensibility commonly are elevated in direct proportion to the number of discussion participants who do not opt for anonymity – a phenomenon that "speaks loudly" for itself in this unedited passage, and throughout the Blog from which is has been reprinted.
New Alb Annie said...
I was talking to a friend the other day about the Scribner Place project. He's all for it, but made the comment that although it keeps getting scaled back (like the Plaza over the floodwall), the costs don't seem to be dropping in relation to the scale-back.
Does anyone know what the original proposed costs were, and what they are now?
One of my concerns about this project is the hole through the floodwall rather than the walkway over it. It makes more sense to go over instead of under for a variety of reasons. Has a presentation ever been made that compares the costs of both?
6:46 AM, June 03, 2005
The New Albanian said...
I believe that when Mayor Overton first proposed it, the project was billed as a $60 million + investment, but it was never clear what that really meant. Combined investment from all parties?
7:23 AM, June 03, 2005
bluegill said...
Annie,
Can you explain why you think going over the floodwall is better than cutting a couple of holes?
8:42 AM, June 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
Coffey's entertaining idea - why doesn't YMCA fit the bill? Why does the city need to co-sign for their investment? Why won't the financing work without the city?
It appears to me that YMCA is resourceful when it comes to raising their share of the money.
Any thoughts?
9:16 AM, June 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
It's a symbiotic relationship. Both parties benefit from the development. Is it really unrealistic to ask the city to contribute it's share?
9:37 AM, June 03, 2005
The New Albanian said...
The NAC correspondent took notes on last night's meeting, sans editorial comment. They're here:"Cave living is the life for me," notes CM Cappuccino as City Council work session considers city's role in YMCA, Scribner Place
10:26 AM, June 03, 2005
bluegill said...
I agree with the above comment concerning the mutually beneficial relationship.
I would also add that when one makes a commitment (regardless of whether they are an individual, company or municipality), one should honor that commitment, especially when others have based multi-million dollar decisions on it.
In my opinion, reneging on the promise to fund Scribner Place would not only risk the loss of millions of dollars in private investment in downtown now, but would also seriously damage the entire municipality's credibility, making it more difficult to attract other investment in the future.
I would strongly prefer that governments keep their promises. An argument against funding Scribner Place seems to be an argument that the city, in our name, should break one.
3:17 PM, June 03, 2005
Concern Taxpayer said...
I feel the right move for the taxpayers. Is for the YMCA take the money from the boat. And private donations should all be used for Scribner place. And leave The City Of New Albany out of this. We will have to put Taxes on our Property to borrow Bond Money. Which means all of our Property Taxes will go up. Let YMCA build it. YMCA Handle Maintance,Rent out portions to other business. The YMCA stated there coming to New Albany regardless. Also let the City of New Albany sell the property to the YMCA. Let them pay for the clean up. Then the monies paid back to the City can help with this mess we are in!!! And you all get your YMCA and the Taxpayers of New Albany are not "BURDEN" with the bill...
8:14 PM, June 03, 2005
bluegill said...
Concern Taxpayer,
Could you please explain what you mean by the statement below:"We will have to put Taxes on our Property to borrow Bond Money. Which means all of our Property Taxes will go up."
8:18 PM, June 03, 2005
New Albany Resident said...
So what really gets me. Is all the land and business that were bought with my tax dollars. For Scribner place. Mr. Garner states for $1.00 That is what New Alany will charge the YMCA to Lease the land? After my Tax Dollars was used to pay for this land? This Whole deal does not set well with me. This goes back to why we need an Investigation. Can anyone give the amount of money spent to buy this land?
8:31 PM, June 03, 2005
bluegill said...
new albany resident,
Are you saying you're angry that the city purchased the land even though you don't how much it cost?
You said:
"So what really gets me. Is all the land and business that were bought with my tax dollars."
And then you said:
"Can anyone give the amount of money spent to buy this land?"
It seems kind of unusual to me that someone would be upset about a purchase if they didn't know what it cost.
For instance, if my wife said "I just bought a new Corvette for $100,000", I'd be upset.
But, if she said, "I just bought a new Corvette for $30,000", I'd be happy since I'd know it was a wise investment that would easily pay for itself and help us to make money.
You also said:
"This goes back to why we need an Investigation."
What about the city purchasing land strikes you as illegal? Are cities not allowed to purchase land?
8:52 PM, June 03, 2005
The New Albanian said...
This sentence strikes far closer to the truth behind the anon's ire:"And you all get your YMCA and the Taxpayers of New Albany are not "BURDEN" with the bill."
10:58 PM, June 03, 2005
East Ender said...
What I learned last night was that the City has purchased all the land, including $35K for a small lot that was "not particularly needed, but was a reasonable deal", is paying for all the cleanup (estimated up to $1 mil), and will lease to freshly cleaned land to the YMCA for $1 per year (yes, that's one dollar).
I didn't hear anyone say what the total cost for the land came in at. Does anyone know for sure? It should be public record shouldn't it?
As you can see I still have lots of questions. That is, since none were allowed from any member of the public.
10:58 PM, June 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
You would have to go to Barbara Sillings or Brenda Egge's office to get sales disclosures. Lots of luck finding your answers on the land deals? The computers are set up for taxes. And information is a year in the rear.
12:16 AM, June 04, 2005
emersonlives said...
Over and over and over again, the gross timidity of the 'Bune rears its head as a key element in this confusion and uncertainty.
Why should Laura, or Baylor, or me, or any of YOU have to go to the city-county building (or wherever the hell Ms Sillings -slash- Egge labors) and get some runaround as the "computers not set up" to provide this information.
Here you have the guv'mint... the citizens it is supposed to serve... and a lurking judiciary which settles things when necessary. Fine. What's missing? The Fourth Estate.
The 'Bune has every right -- and a pro-active responsibility -- to find and provide this information. And not because a bunch of screaming bloggers demand it, but well before that.
More than anyone I want to see downtown Gnawbnee re-vitalized -- and the Scribner Place project seems like a workable and worthwhile beginning -- but if I had a wish list, local ownership of the 'bune (with an aggressive M.E.) would top my list.
6:19 AM, June 04, 2005
The New Albanian said...
Well said, Joe.
8:12 AM, June 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
Question: How much was spent on property purchase?
Answer:
Retailers Supply - $328,812.00
Schmitt Furniture - $463,877.57
Dierking Properties - $380,976.08
Goulding Parking Lots (Pearl) - $97,583.56 + $35,000.00
Total: $1,306,249.10
For your information
9:00 AM, June 04, 2005
The New Albanian said...
If memory serves me, these numbers are in keeping with what the city said about expenditures last fall.
10:30 AM, June 04, 2005
bluegill said...
Those numbers also jive with what the Mayor said at the workshop. He said that they had budgeted $2.5 million for acquisition and clean up. With land acquisition complete, they are currently under budget if the estimated clean up cost of $1 million holds true.
3:10 PM, June 04, 2005
bluegill said...
Forgot to add a capitalized Amen to emerson.
While the 'Bune has admittedly shown some signs of life very recently, I all too often find myself nearly screaming questions at the newspaper.
3:17 PM, June 04, 2005
East Ender said...
A mutually beneficial partnership generally consists of sharing the risks and the rewards of a common project or undertaking.
The YMCA is undrtaking an $8 million dollar physical structure that is being funded primarily through private investors.
As a testament to the long history and good image of the "Y" (if I may), they have already raised a substantial $5 million of that cost, and are confident the remaining investment proceeds necessary ($3 million) will be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, the city of New Albany has "allocated" $2.5 million for acquisition of properties, demolition, and environmental clean-up for the site of the Y and a nautatorium.
Once this work is accomplished, the land (or at least part of it) will be leased to the YMCA for $1 (one) dollar per year.
Once the building is built, the YMCA will begin recieving revenues from memberships. They've been doing this a long time and their membership arrangements are posted at NA Confidential. I didn't know first time members paid a "joining fee".
On the other side of this mutually beneficial relationship is the city that wants to borrow $15 million, using property taxes as a "backup" guarantee - for lower interest - (so we're only paying back $20K to borrow $15K), and pledge the use of $400K in EDIT dollars for the next...how many years? - (2009 was mentioned I think)- and use a $1 million pledge from Caesars "towards any downtown project" (at least it started that way), and they will build the nautatorium.
The multi-bodied water facility, however, is not a YMCA project. Access and use of the water facilities will not be included in the YMCA membership package.
Indeed, it has not yet been determined who will be overseeing the "water features" side of the project.
It was noted that should a sought-after "we're still negotiating", arrangement for the Y to manage the facility, not work out, the duties will then fall to the Parks Department.
I'm worried already and this is just the start of "Phase I".
Love the YMCA, don't like the timing of this endeavor.
But please, don't talk to me about the city's "Integrity" and the importance of keeping promises.
Where's our code-enforcement officer to clean up this city???
Oh, that's right. We can't afford one. Don't even get me started.
But, is it just me, or has everyone been adamantly debating the financial "crisis" this city is in the middle of, under warnings that we may have to "shut down city services" if we don't borrow money to keep things going? I just think the public deserves some answers. Too much is still unknown and not enough information has gotten to the general public. What about us "little guys"?
7:22 PM, June 04, 2005
New Alb Annie said...
Don't hold your breath on the code enforcement officer. Too many slumlords aka mayoral campaign contributors have too much to lose if that happens.
8:53 PM, June 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
A sensible business person would be thinking about management of theseScribner facilities. The YMCA will manage their building. Who do you think will manage and pay the bills on the other buildings?
Don't forget, we are paying $615,000. per year on Downtown Parking Garage, plus electric at about $800 per month. I heard that they are paying a hefty price for a company to run the garage.
OK-- Guys-- Someone needs to be thinking of the cost of operation andupkeep of the planned buildings, give us some estimates on operation.
11:37 PM, June 04, 2005
Brandon W. Smith said...
Regarding the tunnel vs. the walkway:
If I remember the Mayor's explanation from a prior engagement, I think since the railroad passes over or near the floodwall, the mandated clearance over the tracks would put the walkway much too high to be practical.
Regarding the axing of the riverview plaza:
This is a shame and I hope it is put back into the project or added at a later date. Recall what a wonderful turn for the better the atmosphere in downtown Louisville made once they reoriented the city back toward the river via Riverfront Park and all of the subsequent projects.
11:46 PM, June 04, 2005
bluegill said...
Laura,
I understand that you're concerned but I think you may have some misconceptions.
I'll try to take it point by point and explain as best I can.
1. Meanwhile, the city of New Albany has "allocated" $2.5 million for acquisition of properties, demolition, and environmental clean up for the site of the Y and a natatorium.
The first $1 million of that is made up of the first of twenty Caesars payments of $1 million each. $400,000 came from an EPA grant. Another $400,000 is EDIT money that the council agreed to spend before the rules for EDIT money were changed. It had to be spent on economic development according to fairly strict rules. At the time of the vote, it couldn't be transferred to the general fund or any other fund.
I admit to ignorance as to what fund(s) the other $700,000 came from. Perhaps someone else knows. If I find out, I'll let you know.
The end result is that the city has so far spent $1.1 million, including the original $400,000 in restricted EDIT money. That figure assumes that the total clean up costs will be $1 million as estimated. Adjust accordingly. Caesars and the EPA have spent $1.4 million, thereby more than doubling the city's investment. I wish I could do that well.
2. On the other side of this mutually beneficial relationship is the city that wants to borrow $15 million, using property taxes as a "backup" guarantee - for lower interest - (so we're only paying back $20K to borrow $15K), and pledge the use of $400K in EDIT dollars for the next...how many years? - (2009 was mentioned I think).
What the city brings to the deal is borrowing power. As a municipality, the city has access to lower interest rates via bonds than do private investors. The use of property taxes as collateral lowers that interest rate even further, saving us millions over the life of the bond.
Caesars however, will be paying back the majority of the bond.
The first Caesars payment went to property acquisition and clean up as noted above. The next two payments go to the YMCA for its portion of the building. After that, the Caesars payments of $1 million per year (totaling $17 million) will go to pay off the city's bond. The city will use $400,000 in EDIT money per year for two years to make payments until the Caesars money kicks back in to the city.
When the Caesars payments return to the city, the EDIT money will be used as an emergency back up mechanism should Caesars skip town or some other unforeseen catastrophe. The EDIT money cannot be pledged to another bond during that time. As long as Caesars makes its scheduled payment, however, the EDIT money can be spent on any pay-as-you-go projects for which the city sees fit to use it each year (according to EDIT rules, of course).
If Caesars honors its commitment, the city will have invested a total of $1.9 million on Phase One while others will have invested approximately $28 million.
3. I'm worried already and this is just the start of "Phase I".
Thus far, there has been no talk that I'm aware of concerning public expenditure for Phase 2, which has always been focused on private investors who may be interested in housing, hotels, etc, that would fit well within the scope of the project.
If that occurs, the city will almost certainly be better off due to the revenue generated by such businesses, as would downtown merchants who could serve residents, hotel guests, etc.
If it doesn't occur, we've still turned a small investment into more than ten times its worth and generated what by most reasonable reckoning (namely the history of Y success that you noted) will be a steady stream of store customers, potential house buyers, and other potential investors into the long ailing downtown district.
4. Once this work is accomplished, the land (or at least part of it) will be leased to the YMCA for $1 (one) dollar per year.
This is actually one of the best parts of the deal. While the lease amount seems ridiculous, I'm guessing it's at least part of the reason that the Y chose downtown instead of some other piece of suburban property. You'll note that Mr. LaRocca said that the Y is definitely coming to New Albany. He didn't say that it's definitely coming to downtown.
The beauty is though, that the city owns the land surrounding the Y. Once the Y is built, that prime commercial real estate will become more valuable. The city can then sell it to other investors at a higher price to help recoup costs. The land the Y will sit on will only increase in value as well. Should the Y ever fail, the city can a) lease it to someone else at a much higher rate or b) sell it at a profit.
5. It was noted that should a sought-after "we're still negotiating", arrangement for the Y to manage the facility, not work out, the duties will then fall to the Parks Department.
We already own a public pool that stays very busy but is limited to seasonal use. The pool, quite frankly, is one of the main reasons I would buy a membership or pay fees. It's anecdotal, but others have told me the same. Mr. LaRocca also noted that the "water features" are the biggest draw at the Y's current facility. Also the pool(s) will be included in Y membership if the Y runs the pool. City residents will pay a fee.
I, too, think it would be better if the Y ran the natatorium because of their more developed programming. I see no reason to believe, though, that the city couldn't do it if necessary based on their decades of experience at Camille Wright.
6. But, is it just me, or has everyone been adamantly debating the financial "crisis" this city is in the middle of, under warnings that we may have to "shut down city services" if we don't borrow money to keep things going?
I would argue that it's less of a crisis and more of a temporary set back, based largely on paying back a loan a year too late. The warnings of shutting down city services weren't predicated on the sewer loan, but rather on whether or not the City Council would do its duty and pass any budget. Simply put, if the council won't appropriate the money, the administration can't write checks to employees.
You and I may disagree about whether or not the sewer loan should've been passed or where other money should or shouldn't be spent, but the most frustrating part for me was the abdication of responsibility on the part of certain Council Members. The Council had the Garry Plan in front of them for six weeks prior to the vote and, though some of them were steadfast in their refusal to pass the budget as delivered, not a single one of them came forward with a workable alternative or even constructive suggestions for an alternative.
7. I just think the public deserves some answers. Too much is still unknown and not enough information has gotten to the general public. What about us "little guys"?
We agree that the city could and should do a better job of explaining all this. It's worth noting, though, that nearly all this information, sans my opinions of course, has been published in the Tribune at one time or another over the last couple of years.
I was able to find most of it on the Internet, in my opinion the best tool possible ever developed for us "little guys".
If we can't afford to fix city problems even in years during which we aren't handcuffed by the state, how are we going to save our way out of trouble? As another commenter mentioned, trying to find a way to generate more revenue without raising taxes seems reasonable. In fact, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that taxes will be raised if we don't find other revenue streams. If you have any ideas on how better to do that, I'm listening.
We can discuss the integrity comments if you wish. I just used this comment to focus on project info.
11:54 PM, June 04, 2005
East Ender said...
Geez bluegill, you really have a propensity to take apart everyone else's comments line by line.
I'm actually getting complaints that the comments are getting too long. Please, in the future, instead of going thru the entire dialogue from the other commenter and re-interpreting or correcting it, try to keep your comments more concise.
If you have additional or different information to add to the mix, please do so, but refrain from the "lessons".
3:41 AM, June 05, 2005
East Ender said...
Learned today, witha a bit of research, that the first 2 (two) $1 million installments from Caesars are promised to the YMCA as well.
Also, the Redevelopment Commission floated a bond in 2003 towards the environmental clean-up that is being paid now by EDIT funds.
EDIT is also paying the Parking Garage costs of $615K per year.
Where is the Economic Director in all this who's being paid a $36K salary out of $25K approved by the council?
We need a calculator.
4:07 AM, June 05, 2005
New Alb Annie said...
Does anyone know if Caesar's has escrowed the $20 million they have pledged, or is the promise to pay this amount just a "gentleman's agreement"?
East ender, does your research mean that we do not, at this point, have $1 million from Caesar's to use for cleanup and property acquisition as bluegill indicated?
6:53 AM, June 05, 2005
Brandon W. Smith said...
East Ender, don't take this the wrong way, as I am just a semi-neutral observer here, but Bluegill just gave you and everyone else essentially all of the information they need about Scribner Place, something people have been asking for on here for days, and you thank him by saying he should keep it more concise and stop the lessons???
I'm beginning to think that some people on here don't want to know the facts, for then they won't have a reason to complain.
Again, as Bluegill reiterated, all of this info is relatively easy to find via Internet. The city can and should make this available in an easy-to-read form
8:58 AM, June 05, 2005
7 comments:
Bluegill's post was very well written, but I disagree that he "essentially gave us all the information". Only points 1 and 2 of his post list fact rather than opinion, and Laura has differing info on the money situation in item 1.
Reread Bluegill's post again and see if items 3 thru 7 are fact or merely his well-stated opinion.
I think he stated his position and feelings well, giving reasons for such, and that is what Laura's forum is for. But a well-educated viewpoint should not be perceived as a listing of facts if indeed it is not.
Bluegill's post was intelligently conceived, very well written, imbued with solid reasoning and with a good many (if not all) of the relevant facts, to boot.
The point here is that the Speak Lout Luddites incessantly clamor for answers, and when someone attempts to provide answers, or at the very least a starting point for discussion, there's silence enough to hear the crickets chirping in Corydon ... then a day or two passes ... then the clamor for answers begins, again, with evidence of reading comprehension sadly, but not unexpectedly, lacking.
The problem is that the answers offered aren't to the liking of the questioners, and the method suggested for uncovering further answers quite beyond the habit of reasoning that involves frequent anonymous screaming.
Laura's chief error (of many) with Speak Lout NA is that she mistakes the sound emanating from the throats of her fans as free speech, when in fact, those sounds may or may not be as coherent as the roars of approval, or boos of disapproval, experienced in a typical ballpark setting.
There is a responsibility that accompanies the right of free speech, and Laura seeks to gut that responsibility and substitute the howls of the anonymous, minimizing the thinking necessary to unravel life's (and this city's) innate complexities.
Annie, you're a bright and thoughtful person, and it's a pleasure having you here, even if we disagree.
I keep hearing that Scribner Place may cause property taxes to increase! Does anyone have any idea what size of increase we are talking about?
First, under this proposal the property tax is only a guarantee on the funds being borrowed; they very well may not be needed if things play out as expected. But, should we need a property tax increase, how much? I mean is it pennies on the dollar, even a few bucks, it’s not like we are talking hundreds of dollars per household here!
When asked by a councilman who should pay for this project, I said, “I will, that is what I pay taxes to the city, for infra-structure, fire protection, police protection, etc.”
I have to say, that what Bluegill said so far seems to be the most direct information that I have heard so far from any source.
I agree with you, Rick.
I doubt that any increase would be substantial. Despite a tight budget, I would be willing to pay higher property taxes for the quality of life benefits that Scribner Place will bring to me. I see the ability to walk from my home to the YMCA and the natatorium as a great positive for living in downtown New Albany. I’ll enjoy using the facilities and when I have kids, it will be wonderful to have a nearby place to take them for sports, swimming, etc.
In addition, as many people have pointed out, the incentive that it will create for people and businesses to come to downtown will hopefully help to further revitalize the area.
And it may eventually help me financially as any increased investment and revitalization in downtown will increase property values in the area.
We’ve all talked a lot about problems with the leadership in New Albany holding the city and its residents back, but another stumbling block is the residents. There are so many people who are quick to complain and make demands, but when the time comes to shoulder some responsibility (whether it involves money or not), they disappear.
I understand that we all hate taxes and that often we don’t feel that we’re getting our money’s worth. But, so many people are willing to pay exorbitant prices for cable or satellite TV, gasoline, clothes, movies, eating out, etc. Why won’t they give money for things such as this project, which could have even greater benefits for their families? (Swimming is certainly healthier than watching TV!) They don’t want to give money to the government because they feel that they don’t have control over how it’s spent. They do have influence though through speaking out about their opinions and voting.
Really though, I’m arguing a point that most likely will not have any bearing on this issue since, as it has been pointed out several times, property taxes will probably not have to be used at all toward paying off the bond.
I am not sure that we disagree, Roger. I am very much in favor of Scribner Place. My major concern is that a project of this magnitude requires some very bright people seeing it through to fruition--and beyond. And I am not seeing many shining stars in New Albany government.
R. Mutt, thanks for bringing some perspective to the subject of property taxes.
Of all the taxes I pay, property is one tax where I feel I really get my money's worth.
In the first 5 months of this year I have already paid the cities of Louisville and Jefferstown $158.42 more than my property tax bill for the entire year of 2004 just for the privilege of working in Louisville.
Most days I drink at least 3 Diet Cokes. If I buy all of them at the cheapest sale price ever available at the grocery store I will spend an amount equal to 2/3rds of my 2004 property tax bill.
And I don't have a mortgage exemption (although I understand I am eligible for one).
Don't get me wrong, I want my money used well and I don't particulary want to pay more taxes.
There are probably opportunities for the city to save money and it doesn't hurt to look but if you stop to think about what you do get for your money it doesn't seem so bad.
It is a false savings for elected officials to refuse to invest for the future. Everyone who bought a house in the past 15 years knows how an investment can grow. And when the city puts off investing in infrastructure and needed maintenance the taxpayers end up paying more for it later when prices have gone up.
In the interest of full disclosure I suppose I should tell you that earlier in the year a comment on this blog referred to houses that are similar in size, style, and age to my house as piece-of-shit houses. And, I don't have cable tv. Are my priorities screwed up?
NA Girl,
Thanks for some great points. I too cringe when I see the amount that I pay to the city of Louisville. I’m glad that you brought up the fact that putting things off makes them more expensive in the long-run.
By the way, your priorities are correct according to me--but, I don't have cable either, so maybe my opinion is skewed. :)
Post a Comment