Lying by Omission??

[Chief]

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Koski
To: letters@columbian.com
Cc: Tim Leavitt ; Royce Pollard ; PatCampbell ; Pat McDonnell ; Pat Jollata ; Nelson Holmberg ; Larry Smith ; Jeanne Stewart ; Jeanne Harris ; gtoliver@umich.edu ; nbaker@PortVanUSA.com ; Larry Paulson ; bwolfe@PortVanUSA.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:14 AM

Subject: Lying by Omission??


Dear Editor;

During the May 12th meeting of the Port of Vancouver, City of Vancouver Development Director Eric Holmes told Port Commissioner Jerry Oliver that there were no tax abatements at the former Boise Cascade site.

Holmes' statement is true only because nothing has been built yet to abate the property taxes on. Because of the City Center Visioning Plan that City Council approved last Fall, all properties built on that site are automatically eligible to apply for tax abatements, and will no doubt be approved by City Council when the time comes.

The Port of Vancouver Commissioners are being asked to consider a new Inter-Local agreement with the City of Vancouver to assume liability for the City’s matching share of those LIFT funds. The data the City presented to the Port is significantly flawed in that it takes no account for a full decade of zero tax revenues from the waterfront project.

The Port Commissioners would do well to reject any agreement with the City on those terms.

Bob Koski
Vancouver, WA

[karma]

Time will tell and I'm sure some folks here will bring it to light!??????

[Chief]

This response was forwarded to my by City Councilman Pat Campbell. It is from Eric Holmes, the City of Vancouver's Economic Development Director.

All-

Paul Lewis and I presented the waterfront access LIFT project to the Port Commission yesterday morning. This presentation was on the schedule of events reviewed in our presentation to Council at the May 5 workshop.

The purpose of the presentation was to brief the Port Commission on the lift program, the status of the access project, and to review the potential of a formal relationship between the City and Port for the LIFT application. Because one of the competitive evaluation criteria for the LIFT award is to have local funding partners, a relationship with the port would increase our competitiveness. This is very similar to the relationship the City and Port have on the River west project.

Commissioner Baker asked if the City had authorized or if we would authorize multi-family tax abatements for projects within the Boise property, expressing concern over what financial implications that might have for the Port in general, or for the Port as a funding partner under an approved LIFT funded project. I told the Port Commission that the City had not authorized any tax abatements in the project, and that current policy direction was not to do so in the future. In addition, Paul and I underscored that, because LIFT is a tax increment tool, abating taxes for the first ten years of the project would be contrary to what we were trying to achieve with the LIFT funding application, as it would in effect eliminate the tax increment.

The only caveat I offered was the possibility of a VHA project on the waterfront, as I know that VHA and the developer have met without the City’s involvement.

Given the magnitude of development we anticipate to happen on the waterfront, and the structure of the relationship we would anticipate between the Port and City, our financial projections of future tax revenues form the project suggest that it is unlikely that the Port would end up contributing anything financially under a LIFT funded project. Their status as a funding partner is more for strategic advantage in our competitive application than their financial contribution if we did receive a LIFT award.

While I appreciate Mr. Koski’s concern, his assertions are not founded in the facts of our presentation yesterday. I hope this information is of assistance – if anyone needs anything else, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

[Chief]

I stand by every word I've said on this matter, and until the City Council removes the tax abatement eligibility fromt he City Center Visioning Plan, the Boise site is eligible for tax abatements at some future date. That is the point here.

[Waterbuffalo]

Here is some more information Tim posted on his blog site.. Its just to add more information but may not answer your Question Chief.

http://leavitt4vancouver.blogspot.com/2008/03/capital-improvement-investment-in.html

AND>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.portvanusa.com/about/mtg_archive/2007/2_7_07.htm

Mr. Burdick explained in addition to grants that will come through the Parks Department for waterfront access, it is presumed there will be money that flows from the City and through the City from State and Federal sources for transportation improvements. He said tax abatement may also be necessary to make up for the high cost of developing this property. He stated public access to the waterfront is part of the Vancouver City Center Vision Plan and regulatory controls through the Shoreline Master Plan ensure this access. He explained in order to ensure high quality development and public access to the waterfront the City expects financial participation will be needed.

This is for some parkland in THAT area........

Please go read the Link. This is for Terminal 1 that might be near the Boise Cascade site. I'd like to hear from some others if I am wrong on my comments quoting Steve Burdick, now of Killian Pacific, formerly with the City of Vancouver Economic Development Team. There is a lot more listed and I would love to hear from others, so that I am not quoting out of context.

[Chief]

That goes directly to the heart of the problem WB. The City used abatements already to sell this idea, and lure Gramor through the door to develop it. It's going to cost a bloody fortune to develop that land and the City has already given away a decade worth of revenue before the first shovel of dirt is turned.

And keep in mind that we are still only talking about a small part of the financial puzzle the City's Development Office is trying to assemble. There is still a massive hole in the funding even if this fantasy was approved, and I doubt that it will be.

I thought Eric Holmes' reaction to my letter was interesting as well, and you probably noticed how deftly he skipped around the issue I raised.

[Waterbuffalo]

Since your *ahem* interested in the subject, I thought you'd love to spend an hour of your time confirming and watching a little bit more from our friends over at Identity Clark County.

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/cvtv/cvtvindex.asp?catID=999&fileID=9615

Its about an hour long and I think you'll find the information most enlightening to confirm your suspicions. All ready spent a few puking sessions in the bathroom after watching it myself.

And some one asked if Cruise ships could possibly come into this development? Yeah, I need another Disneyland themed development and fantasyland.

And no, I didn't take notes for you.. So your going to have to watch it yourself after you get back from the Q and A tomorrow night.

[Chief]

bumping...

It took long enough, but this letter finally made it into the paper this morning.

[Waterbuffalo]

Do you have anything new to add?

[Chief]

Not now...the next step will be at the next Port Commission meeting, and when they go to consider the Inter-Local agreement with the City.

[Waterbuffalo]

I'll be awaiting for my visions of grandeur with Popcorn in hand.

[Chief]

I have it on very good authority that the Port of Vancouver Commissioners will consider language in an interlocal agreement with the City of Vancouver for development of the former Boise Cascade site, that will preclude the Port's involvement if tax abatements of any kind are ever granted for that development.

That is a major development, and I will be very curious to see what the City has to say about that...

Developing...HOT!

[Waterbuffalo]

I have it on very good authority that the Port of Vancouver Commissioners will consider language in an interlocal agreement with the City of Vancouver for development of the former Boise Cascade site, that will preclude the Port's involvement if tax abatements of any kind are ever granted for that development.

That is a major development, and I will be very curious to see what the City has to say about that...

Developing...HOT!

I'll be awaiting for with visions of grandeur with Popcorn in hand.

With this language finally kill off the project?

[Chief]

Visions of grandeur?? What is that supposed to mean?

[Waterbuffalo]

<deleted comments and waiting until Tuesday's meeting to comment further.>

[Chief]

Bumping back up for further review...

Please consider this response that came from Eric Holmes earlier this year in regard to the question of Tax Abatements at the Columbia Waterfront LLC Project...

Commissioner Baker asked if the City had authorized or if we would authorize multi-family tax abatements for projects within the Boise property, expressing concern over what financial implications that might have for the Port in general, or for the Port as a funding partner under an approved LIFT funded project. I told the Port Commission that the City had not authorized any tax abatements in the project, and that current policy direction was not to do so in the future. In addition, Paul and I underscored that, because LIFT is a tax increment tool, abating taxes for the first ten years of the project would be contrary to what we were trying to achieve with the LIFT funding application, as it would in effect eliminate the tax increment.

The only caveat I offered was the possibility of a VHA project on the waterfront, as I know that VHA and the developer have met without the City’s involvement.

Please keep in mind that in accordance with City Council, the Development Department, the City Manager and even the City of Vancouver's Chief Financial Officer, the entire project falls under the auspices of the City of vancouver's "City Center Visioning Plan".

One of the Development tools that is specifically authorized in the CCVP are ten year tax abatements, and the plan says that such abatements can only be approved by vote of City Council. There is in fact nothing preventing any future City Council from allowing those abatements; in fact I believe an excellent case could be brought in court by anyone who purchases property down there and chooses to sue the City of Vancouver to grant them the tax abatements as provided for in the City Center Visioning Plan.

You would have to be foolish not to, and I can even see potential buyers insisting on a guaranteed 10-year abatement as a condition of sale.

How fast do you think City Council would move to approve those 10-year abatements if suddenly all of the sales became contingent upon it, especially if word came to the City via Court Order??

Consider this as the City decides the fate of our money for the next 20+ years...

cewl