Maplecrest Extension - Abatements Don’t Matter According to Commissioners
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 5/17/08 @ 11:47 am - Filed Under 2008 Local Elections, Featured, Local Politics
At Thursday’s county council meeting the councilmembers noted that the economic impact study did not include the effects of tax abatements on the bottom line for the TIF district - i.e. they assumed no tax abatements when deciding if it was affordable. The county has now looked at the effect of abatements in the targeted area and (surprise) has decided it’s no big deal. Here’s my favorite quote:
There are two major reasons abatements aren’t likely to deal a crippling blow, Harrold said. First, much of the development will be commercial, which isn’t likely to receive tax abatements.
Tell me this guy isn’t serious. Has he not been watching anything involving city council and their use of tax abatements? If any of that development happens in the city then it will be granted a tax abatement. Council gave them to McDonalds and Subway because they were in targeted economic redevelopment zone and since the consultants’ own study now assumes the Maplecrest Extension TIF will be the #1 redevelopment zone that gets pushed it’s hard to imagine those businesses won’t get tax abatements too.
And the JG finally weighs in with half a story:
Because of the abatements, the TIF districts would not generate enough revenue to completely cover the county’s annual bond payments until 2022. A separate, existing bridge tax would be needed to make those payments for several additional years, according to the county’s projections.
That “separate, existing bridge tax” is not just some unused bag-o-money found on the side of the road. It’s the major bridge fund and it’s used for bridge maintenance - you know just the kind of thing they are about to raise our taxes for. The commissioners want to totally exhaust this fund to pay for this project - does that sound wise to anyone (hired county consultants are ineligible to answer)?
And here’s your “we’re not really trying to avoid a referendum” quote of the day from the commissioners:
Commissioner Linda Bloom suggested the commissioners push the council to set a date for a special meeting to finish answering the council’s questions.
Comments
11 Responses to “Maplecrest Extension - Abatements Don’t Matter According to Commissioners”
Leave a Reply
Mike Sylvester - Can you see what Harrold is saying? The numbers that I saw showed that for about 3 years there wasn’t a lot of balance in the Major Bridges account - how in the heck is he getting around that. Also, look at the map that they furnished - a large part of the “commercial” area is in the Fort Wayne TIF development, just as Jeff has indicated - Fort Wayne WILL abate those areas! Someone has to point this out to the people that count on this - the four male members of our County Council - and you can do it, Mike.
Three days and waiting. This is an update on the Request for Bids or bid specs for the Umbaugh and Associates feasibility study for the Maplecrest Project. Cutting through the chase, they have been requested. They have not been made available.
Now the chase. I do believe it is important for taxpayers and the public to see the specs. Otherwise it is speculation whether the fallacies of the study are the fault of the contractor or the fault of the contractee (Allen County). Maybe they did what they were asked to do. Maybe not.
Assuming there is a Request for Bids, I reviewed the website for all County bids active, awarded, under evaluation, and in the bidding process and this one was not there. I emailed the Department of Public Purchase requesting a copy for review on May 15. A same-day email reply referred me to the County website to review the documents there (did aleady and did again and still nothing there). The email reply said if I wanted more information, I should contact the Highway Department directly.
On the morning of May 16, I did that with a phone call message to the assigned staff in the Highway Department for the Maplecrest Project. No response that day. On the off chance that county staff worked overtime, I waited again on Saturday (today) and no response.
The County Commissioners and the City Common Council are meeting on this on Tuesday evening. That means it’s time to crank up the request by making an in person request on Monday. I indicated on Friday morning in my request that I would complete their public records request form and pay the standard copy expense. So what’s the problem?
Bid specs or Request for Bids are certainly not exmempt from Indiana’s Open Records Law or how could anyone bid on a government contract if they weren’t allowed to see the bid requirements?
So this is indeed a public record.
Is it possible that there was no Request for Bids or specs? Was the contract sole sourced based on the argument that Umbaugh could deliver on a timely basis and is “head and shoulders” above other possible contractors given their experience with local governments and schools in the State of Indiana? IF that happened, there would then be a contract to review which in essence would be the specs for a sole source award. And then a question mark on the sole source is in order.
So on Monday, I will try again and see what happens.
At this month’s NEAP meeting,both Council Reps. Karen Goldner and Tom Smith did a stand-up side-by-side seeking citizen input on the Maplecrest Project. I was silent then since my approach was to do some homework on this and then give them some feedback as a citizen constituent in the NEAP quadrant. But the proverbial stonewall is impeding the homework needed to provide informed citizen input.
I reviewed also the Umbaugh and Associates website as suggested in FWO. Umbaugh has extensive experience doing studies with several local government bond pro formas. Doing the feasibility study for Allen County would seem to preclude a bond counsel engagement. Caution flag here.
Also, Mike Sylvester, who attended the County Council meeting, reported here that the contactor used the IMPLAN program, and that the consultants perhaps were not all that familiar with the assumptions and methods in it. That triggered a thought.
Wouldn’t it be less costly to the taxpayer for the county to purchase the IMPLAN progam or a similar one and use it for Maplecrest and future projects? Any software progam has the capability for the user to modify the assumptions and choose the data. It’s the ole GI-GO theory in action. If used in-house, there would be enhnanced credibility.
Tax abatements are one example of an assumption to program or not to program into the IMPLAN program. And where did the data come from? Commercial and residential develpment data, traffic usage data, and demographic data plus more needed to be obtained, verified and inputted into the progam to generate the projections.
Again, virtually all of this is speculation. And unless the public can review the bid specs or the contract, it will remain so. The public eye has rightfully been on questioning the reasonbleness (or lack thereof) of the findings. And more can be done if the public could review the cards dealt the contactor paid with public funds.
As we know from FWP here, the concerns on the findings were in fact the subject of the County Council meeting this week and will again be discussed in public forums next week. And at least two Common Council reps await additional citizen input as the request for the public records remains in limbo.
To whom has Nelson Peters chosen to award the bond council contract? I’l bet it is Umbaugh, based on what they are good at. Something is beginning to smell bad on this project! Attention Allen County Council Members - PLEASE either turn this down or at least let it go to referendum.
Something else that bugs me…..
On March 27th the cost was $55 Million.
Last week, it was $50 Million.
How did the manage to cut $5 Million when the cost of fuel and blacktop is increasing?
Creative accounting??
The extra $8 million they were going to need to hire a lobbyist for is also no longer needed. After congressman Souder told them to pound sand they mysteriously found the money elsewhere - funny how that works…
Jeff,
The cost of the lobbyist is $60k (they were looking to GET $8M).
However, that $60k contract is STILL in effect- we are paying Barnes and Thornburg $5k per month since, I believe, February.
This makes the price variation even odder- they padded the numbers regarding abatements, they lowered the price by $5 Million…..I think they did it to make the numbers work.
Search is over. There is no Request for Bids (RFB) for the Maplecrest feasibility study. Today (May 19), Allen County Department of Purchasing did not have an RFB or bid specs, and referred me to the new consolidated City-County Planning Office. They were very helpful and responsive, but they did not have bid specs either.
The Planning Office contacted the Commissioner’s Office to copy for me whatever they did have for the public to review. This resulted in a copy of the study itself, which does not say a word about bid specs or a contract. The planning office said they thought this was a “negotiated agreement.”
I don’t know the rules in Indiana. I do know that in Wisconsin, negotiated contracts are permissable when there is a “compelling public interest” at stake, when there is a contractor available who can perform within short timeframes, and when the potential contractor is “head and shoulders” more qualified to do the work than others. There may be some policies in Indiana that applied to this study and afforded the County an opportunity to go this route.
What I do know is that the request for standard bid specs or the RFB came up empty.
It will be interesting whether the bond counsel contract will be out for public competitive bids or sole sourced also (and negotiated with Umbaugh and Associates?). Caution flag is in order here.
Indiana law gives local governments enormous flexibility with respect to professional services contracts. State law does not require that they be bid out or that specs be written for them.
This obviously means that local governments need to be vigilant on their own to make sure that appropriate processes are followed. One such appropriate process is developing specifications that are in enough detail that you can determine whether you (the government) has received a final product. In a study such as the one at issue, the specs should have included a list of assumptions. Those assumptions were apparently discussed (ignore tax abatements & assume all industrial development is focused on Adams Center Road, for example) but it doesn’t sound as if they were written down. I can see how that happened given what a hurry the Commissioners were in, but the resultant study is very, very weak due to some of those assumptions not making sense.
I’m a poly sci major who has developed an increasingly dim view of the “science” in social science, particularly in economic impact studies. No question there is economic impact to spending $55 million (or $50 million….) on a bridge. Quantifying that impact is no easy matter. Sorta like love, really - we know it’s real but when you start putting numbers on it is when you get into trouble.
Outstanding!
There is more intellectual information coming
forward as to why the Maplecrest Bridge project should not be built.
Thank you people for researching the issue and for Ms. Goldner for responding. Again, I have learned something (so old dogs can learn)!
Many have wondered about the proposed massive residential build near the industrial area. In this case it is needed to come up with the outlandish numbers the County has proposed in fuel savings and miles driven. Without their arguement is void and null.
What is ironic the reverse could be the truth if the road was not built. People would want to purchase homes in the New Haven area so they would be close to work.
Walmarts, Targets, and so forth would want to build out in the area as it would be underserved.
How can this project be done without an impact study? In general, I talking about the impact on flooding and run off water. Traffic impact on Maplecrest north of the river. What sound barriers is going to afforded the residents who live near Maplecrest?
What coring samples have been completed to know how costly the bridges will be going across the Maumee? How much will it cost to support a heavy duty road running across the ponds on the north shore of the Maumee?
These issues could cost millions and millions of dollars to overcome.
Where have I stood on various projects over the years. I supported the Coliseum Exp from the Expo to the roof raising. I did not support Grand Wayne Exp as it has been, and still is a money looser. In favor of Allen County Lib project. Harrison Sq with regards to Ballpark only.
I am sure most of you understand that the Coliseum needed to ballpark to go as they needed the space for when the expo hall is expanded in the next 4-6 years. Dahhhhhhhhhh.
My guess is Hillard Lyons will get the bond deal- the Gutman’s work there, and seem to get a lot of the work.
But I believe it is put out to bid- not 100% sure on that though.