Port officials to discuss funding for waterfront

[Chief]

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/05/05122008_Port-officials-to-discuss-funding-for-waterfront.cfm

Monday, May 12, 2008
The Columbian

The city of Vancouver’s attempt to get state funding to help finance redevelopment of the waterfront will be discussed at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday during the Port of Vancouver’s monthly meeting.

The city is seeking $12.5 million over 25 years to finance road and rail improvements to the former Boise Cascade site. The money would come through a form of tax increment financing, where tax revenues generated by the project are used to slowly pay off road and rail debt.

City officials will explain to port commissioners the financing program and its application for the money.


I'm not at all clear why the City is explaining this to the Port of Vancouver, but I will be quite curious to hear what they have to say about this "project"...and I will be curious to hear what the Commissioners think about this too...

By the way, you can thank Bill Fromhold, Finger Metcalf and the rest of Identity Clark County for getting the Tax Increment Financing approved by the Legislature. That means that City Council has the authority to bond for that money without voter approval.

[Chief]

One question does occur to me...

If the City is going to pursue Tax Increment Financing in order to raise the $12.5 Million it needs, is there a provision for paying that back that acknowledges and allows for the 10-year tax abatements that City Council has already approved for that site??

[Waterbuffalo]

LIke a loan from the developers?

[Chief]

LIke a loan from the developers?

Huh?? That's a little too cryptic for me...

[Chief]

bumping...

We'll see what the story from the City is today about this one...

Developing...

cewl

[Chief]

I just got back from the Port of Vancouver's regular meeting today, and the high point was the delivery of the City of Vancouver's LIFT presentation, on what the City wants the Port of Vancouver to contribute to the Boise Cascade Project.

LIFT is the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool that could provide the means for the City to latch onto a piece of funding from a State program that is set to expire this year. The City must get their application in by June 30th, which means that they need the Port of Vancouver to sign an Interlocal Agreement soon with the City.

What the City wants is complex. The City of Vancouver drew a line around a number of properties that they say will be directly impacted by the Boise Site Project, and are calling it a "Revenue Development Area" or RDA. Inside of that RDA are some 30 existing businesses, that employ about 300 employees. The RDA also includes a small nuber of Port of Vancouver properties.

The City essentially wants the Port of Vancouver to commit up to 75% of the Property Tax revenues that they would normally recognize on those properties, to pay for the City of Vancouver's $500,000 local match, if needed. In other words, if the City came up short of funding, (which they already know they will for the first three years or so of the project, they need another Taxing Authority in that RDA to agree to pay the rest of the local match.

Here comes the rub.

Commissioner Jerry Oliver directly asked Eric Holmes, the City's Economic Development Director if there were any 10-year tax abatements on the Boise property, and Holmes said directly, "No".

I remember distinctly last Fall that City Council approved those tax abatements for this project, and we have been talking about it here ever since. The problem is I cannot find the original reference to that decision by Council, since it is pre-conversion, it probably got lost.

We need to find that reference, and the only way to do it will be to go examine the minutes of City Council. I have done some searches and come up with nothing, other than constant references to the fact that the abatements down there exist. This is a major point of contention, and could very well make a difference between the Port of Vancouver participating in this scheme, and not.

The mission, (should you choose to accept it) is to find that reference. I have a book of newspaper clipping here that I must go through, that may yield paydirt, but I would appreciate anyone else's help (or better memories about this)...

Let's get to work...

[Chief]

I think I have this partially sorted out...

I believe I recall Vancouver City Council approving tax abatements for the future property owners at that site sometime last year. Now since nobody owns a condo down there yet, there are no tax abatements at the sit...at this time...

I'm still working on nailing down the Resolution that Council approved on this unanimously. It was during Tonk's tenure so it had to before the elections...

I think this is some of the data that got lost in the transition to the new vBulletin back in January...

Developing...

[Chief]

I've heard via e-mail from Councilman Tim Leavit, and he assures me that although there was some discussion about doing so, City Council not voted to grant tax abatements to those properties.

Perhaps I remembered wrong in this case, but we have been talking about this issue here for months, and nobody has rebutted it until now...

In any case, I will be amazed if the Port Commissioners approve an interlocal agreement under the conditions that the City described this morning. It seems to me that if the City believes that the Port of Vancouver will cover that $500 Thousand "if needed", then the City will arrange to be certain that those funds are needed every year. The City is already pleading poverty and threatening to cut Police and Fire, at least according to the daily tabloid, so why expect their financial picture to improve any time soon??

[Chief]

Here is a link to a PDF document provided by the City of Vancouver's Office Economic Development. Please take a look at the list of "successes" and how often tax abatements and residential tax exclusions have been used to force these projects through.

Even City Council is not sure of which tax abatements they have and have not handed out. Once Council member assured me that Al Angelo had not received any abatements, but Al's Number 2 with a Bullet on this hit parade...

:p

This is success??!! (http://www.clarkblog.org/docs/SuccessAudit-living.pdf?s=&showtopic=4351&view=findpost&p=28980)


???