LOGIN | REGISTER AS A USER


Article/Archives | Advanced Search

Style Weekly - Cover StoriesStyle Weekly - News & FeaturesStyle Weekly - ArtStyle Weekly - MusicStyle Weekly - MoviesStyle Weekly - Food & DrinkStyle Weekly - CalendarStyle Weekly - OpinionStyle Weekly - Classifieds
TWITTER  |  FACEBOOK  |  RSS  | THE SCOOP HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  ABOUT US  |  ADVERTISE

Bookmark and Share

 
, Posted On: 2/10/2009

Ballpark Bonds: A Lesson From Broad Street



by Scott Bass
As part of the Broad Street Community Development Authority’s deal with the city, the developer agreed to renovate the old Miller & Rhoads department store into a hotel to help the convention center attract more conventions. It opened this week.  Photo by Scott Elmquist
 

While City Hall debates whether to allow developers to issue bonds to build a downtown ballpark, Richmond’s first experiment with nongovernment bonds offers a lesson in missed financial projections.

Six years after the Broad Street Community Development Authority floated $67 million in bonds to level the 6th Street Marketplace and fund other improvements, the authority is on schedule to run out of its internal cash reserves by June 30.

“We’ll just see where our cash position is from the last bond payment,” says Jim Johnson, a member of the Broad Street authority’s board of directors. “It depends on how some things go in the last couple of months.”

There are differences between the ballpark proposal and the Broad Street authority. The $70 million in ballpark bonds would be paid for with new, or speculative, tax revenues generated within a specified tax district in Shockoe Bottom. The $67 million Broad Street authority pays its bond debt mostly with parking revenues and special tax assessments — revenue that largely existed before the bonds were floated.

The Broad Street authority almost immediately ran into setbacks — misinformed revenue forecasting and construction delays — and was forced to recast its financial projections and increase parking fees to make its debt payments.

To make its annual bond payment this year, the Broad Street Community Development Authority needs $5.37 million. The authority told City Council last summer that it expected to be about $124,000 short.

The authority has two primary cash reserves to make up the difference. There’s a supplemental reserve fund, which is nearly depleted, and a trustee-held debt reserve with about $6.13 million. The authority  expects to use all of the first fund and begin dipping into the $6 million fund this summer. 

But here’s the catch: The city agreed to replenish the $6 million fund to the tune of $3 million a year if the bond payments fall short. How short will the authority be this year? Ron Stallings, its chairman, says he isn’t sure. He hopes by only a few thousand, but says he won’t know for sure until later this month: “We were hoping it would be as little as $3,000.”

But there’s an implied warning: Six years into a 30-year bond issue, the authority already is asking the city to make good on a moral obligation it promised wouldn’t be necessary. Sold as a deal that wouldn’t cost the city a penny, the Broad Street authority — which also included the city’s giving the Miller & Rhoads department store building to the authority’s master developer — isn’t going as planned.

Those proposing a new ballpark in Shockoe Bottom make similar claims — they won’t ask the city for a moral obligation to back the bonds if payments fall short, says Paul Kreckman, vice president at Highwoods Properties, the ballpark project’s master developer.

That’s exactly what the Broad Street Community Development Authority  proponents, including city officials, initially promised. Edwin Gaskin, the city’s deputy director of economic development in 2003, told Style then that the only way the parking revenues would ever fall short is if the convention center went belly up.

“That’s an almost apocalyptic scenario for downtown,” he said.


Articles/Archives:
  • French Lick
  • Easy Credit
  • Cusack Becomes Poe, Just Not in Richmond
  • Cooch Loses Round One in U.Va. Probe
  • Double-Dip Recession? Blame the Unspent Stimulus Money

Comment:
Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:17:55 AM by Anonymous
Simpsons' Monorail Episode is perfect antidote for all this pontificating ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vA3xGtjhZ_Yg
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:54:33 PM by FanGuy
Anonymous, do you care to provide some facts for your allegation that folks in support of this project are being "intentionally misleading and manipulative"? That is a very serious charge and I would assume you have some evidence of that.

For starters, what aspect of the actual plan is being misstated or misrepresented? Please explain. An investigative journalist ought to be able to explain that.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:03:39 PM by Anonymous
I can certainly understand how it is that you might not recognize investigative journalism when you see it,considering that you are accustomed to the thumb-sucking boosterism that the Times-Dispatch dispenses on a daily basis.

Scott Bass and Chris Dovi are the only two reporters in this town who dare to delve deeper into a story to get at what is really happening, whether they are reporting on ballparks or bogus school suspension numbers.

The blogger assault in favor of this scam (and soon to be scandal) of the ballpark we do not need is what is intentionally misleading and manipulative.

Times are changing. Richmonders are not as placid and content to do what we are told to do any longer. There is a growing consciousness that the same old lies from the same old liars have gone stale.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:06:31 PM by FanGuy
Has Mr. Bass even bothered to read up on the Highwoods proposal? The City isn't on the hook for the bonds in this proposal. If the developers can't sell the bonds privately, the project doesn't happen, nothing changes in the Bottom, and the City doesn't spend a dime. This isn't a CDA. If the bonds sell and revenue isn't generated as quickly as possible to pay off the bonds, the City again is not on the hook.

Thankfully it appears City leaders are taking a more thoughtful look at this proposal than Mr. Bass and the editors at Style appear to be doing. I guess it's much more expedient for Style to simply rely on misconceptions about the project, which are often grounded in nothing more than the mistaken belief that this project is like prior projects. If one ventures to call this "journalism," it's lazy journalism at best, and intentionally misleading and manipulative journalism at worst.

Comment Box
 
Choose an identity
Registered Blogger Other
 
Username 
Password 
No Registered Blogger account? Sign up here.
CAPTCHA Validation
Retype the code from the picture
CAPTCHA Code Image
Speak the code Change the code