From: Clear, MarkIt looks like their more concerned with being on TV than having a good public process. If no one is going to be happy, they could at least do what would be right for the public. This is absurd, and embarrassing. What awful council leadership.
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:19 AM
To: CN GROUP; MY GROUP; May, Michael; Cieslewicz, Dave; Simon, Debra; Brasser, Dean; Clark, Brad
Subject: Edgewater at BOE and Landmarks on May 10
Dear Colleagues,
I'd like to thank all of you for offering your suggestions and preferences for the scheduling dilemma on May 10. As you might expect, there is no consensus. Many of you feel strongly that we should keep the regular schedule. Others support rescheduling to another date, and still others would prefer that one or the other body refer their respective Edgewater to its next regular meeting.
Given that it's impossible to address everyone's concerns equally, the Mayor, City Channel and council leadership have come up with this plan for May 10:
1. No changes are planned for the Landmarks Commission meeting, which begins at 4:45. Madison City Channel will cover this meeting LIVE on the Web.
2. BOE will convene as normal at 4:30 and take up its non-Edgewater items (Live on MCC Web and TV).
3. BOE will recess after disposing of all other items until perhaps 6:30 or 7:00. (An exact time will be set at the time of recess.) MCC-TV switches to Plan Commission
4. BOE reconvenes (live on MCC-TV)
(Note that all three meetings will be available at all times on the MCC Web site.)
The idea behind step 3 is to give the public and Alders as much opportunity as possible to hear and/or participate in the public comment at both Landmarks and BOE. Likely there will still be some overlap because it's impossible to predict how long BOE's other items may take and how long public comment at Landmarks will take.
Please let me know if you have questions on this plan. Thank you.
Mark C.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Edgewater: This Is NOT Acceptable
As Nan Cheney would say "DO BETTER!". Look at this cluster^%$# for the 10th of May and discussing the Edgewater. This is not acceptable, its not a solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere's the TIF document that is available.
ReplyDeletehttp://legistar.cityofmadison.com/detailreport/?key=20357
At the last Board of Estitmates, alder Bruer said "we have a legal and moral responsibility to the taxpayer to protect the financial integrity of the community."
ReplyDeleteIf Bruer were serious about financial integrity and the integrity of established city policies, Bruer would vote against the Edgewater TIF agreement. I'm not holding my breath.
The most glaring defect is the exception to the 50% rule, a rule which exists to ensure a cushion for payment and, if things work out, some excess funds for district improvements.
Edgewater not only violates the 50% rule, it does so by an astounding 485%. If the rule were followed, Edgewater would be eligible for a more reasonable $3.3 million but the mayor, Bruer and Clear seem to falling over themselves to fork over $16 million, five times what should be allowed.
Monroe Commons' woes show how critically dependent TIF payback is on the property's actual, as-built assessment. Bruer's current answer to Monroe Commons' shortfall is to raise their assessments. But assessments on this $23 million project would have to be raised by $9 million to meet a $182K payment shortfall. That's just plain nuts and isn't going to happen.
Like Monroe Commons, Edgewater's as-built assessment could easily be less than the projected values which would cause its tax payments to also come up short. It's hard to believe that Edgewater will be assessed at $263,200 per room which is more than three times that of the Monona Terrace Hilton and 5 1/2 times higher than the Concourse.
By violating the 50% rule so extremely, Edgewater is a parasite property in the TID district which is not able to contribute tax increment funds for public works improvements in the district. In fact, it needs to suck up $9.4 million from other properties to pay it's loan. The $9.4 million could otherwise be used for district improvements or returned to the taxpayer as tax relief. This $9.4 million is simply a grant from the taxpayers to the Edgewater project.
Mayor Dave is a terribly poor businessman for the city and and an even worse negotiator.
And another thing or two -
ReplyDeleteWe already know that the mayor overstated construction job numbers by a factor of five and significantly understated the number of years before new taxes from Edgwater are available for schools or tax relief.
Now, the TIF agreement confirms two more items to add to the list of Dishonest Dave's Edgewater Distortions and Deceptions.
Dave lied to us when he said:
"the $16 million in tax incremental financing support for the Edgewater that I propose in my capital budget is not a handout, but essentially a loan."
Only $6.6 million of the $16 million will be paid back by Edgewater. The TIF agreement states that the $9.4 million paid by other properties is a grant. It's not a loan, it's a $9.4 million handout.
The mayor also lied when he said:
"..this $90 million reinvestment would produce an extraordinary amount of tax increment, which could be available for all kinds of neighborhood improvement projects like streets, sidewalks, lighting and landscaping. It might even be available for the city's Small Cap TIF program, which helps owner occupants convert income properties back to single family residences."
Another lie. Edgewater can't even pay off it's own loan much less contribute to neighborhood improvements. According to the agreement, Edgewater's TIF violates the TIF policy requirement to be self-supporting and will only pay off $6.6 million of its $16 million loan. There's no excess increment from Edgewater for neighborhood improvements.
It's pathetic that the common council falls for this crap.
Scott - is it all a loan or part loan/part grant? If it's the later as the agreement states (per the reference in your post), then the TIF loan does get paid back. You are playing loose with what is being proposed and what will realistically happen. If it is all really a loan, then maybe there is an issue. But you state its a combination loan/grant.
ReplyDeleteWhile so many argue the Mayor and council are not telling the truth about the Edgewater proposal, the opposition does not do itself any favors by not getting its own facts/assumptions/conclusions correct. It never ceases to amaze me on how ignorant many are regarding TIF.
MadGosling, I'm not sure I understand your point or what you believe is incorrect about Scott's post.
ReplyDeleteScott said: "Only $6.6 million of the $16 million will be paid back by Edgewater. The TIF agreement states that the $9.4 million paid by other properties is a grant. It's not a loan, it's a $9.4 million handout."
That's how I understand it to work, as well. Of the $16 million, $6.6 is a loan, the balance of $9.4 is a "grant" or, more accurately, a gift to the developer from the taxpayers.
The $9.4 million is tax revenue from OTHER properties in TID 32 (including Univ Sq). The Edgewater will not be paying back that $9.4 million portion, but the taxpayers will be paying it back. This $9.4 million surplus of tax revenue from TID 32 could go into the general fund to reduce taxes or pay for other things, but instead it is being given to the Edgewater.
So, when the Mayor said in his blog that the $16 million was a loan, that is incorrect -- as only $6.6 is a loan and $9.4 million is a gift from the taxpayers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMadGosling,
ReplyDeleteLandry addresses your questions.
If I said something about TIF that's incorrect, please say specifically what it is and why it's incorrect.
I mentioned four false claims the mayor has made about the benefits of the Edgewater project. If I'm wrong, please explain how.
TIF is difficult to understand for the uninitiated. That's what the mayor and Hammes Co. are counting on when they make false claims about the Edgewater deal.
I'd venture that some on the common council don't understand the TIF agreement completely and that's just what the mayor and Hammes want.
The common council knew what they were getting with Clear and must have wanted this kind of nonsense when they elected him.
ReplyDeleteThe council obviously likes to be led around by the nose.
The citizens of Madison, however, deserve better.
Here's another giveaway to Hammes that Cieslewicz slipped into the TIF agreement;
ReplyDeleteInstead of the city receiving profit sharing from the project, per TIF policy, we would get "paid" by the developer providing "public access" easements ensuring access, use and preservation of the view.
But we already have these easements as a result of giving Edgewater the end of Wisconsin Avenue in 1965. The WI Ave vacation ordinance is here - http://tinyurl.com/3a8nwme
In addition, the $16 million TIF is specifically for providing "public access", the exact same public access guaranteed by the 1965 ordinance. This would be the SECOND time we are paying for "public access."
And now, the mayor, Bruer, Clear and Maniaci would have us forego profit sharing with the developer, which is required under TIF policy, by giving Hammes credit for easements that we got in 1965. This would be the THIRD time we've paid for the same thing.
We give $16 million, violate a number of TIF policies including 50% rule, not self-supporting, no funds for neighborhood revitalization and not for condos. To top it off, we don't even get equity participation.
Bruer sponsored this TIF agreement while bleating words of "legal and moral responsibility" and "financial integrity."