news-record.com

NEWS

Federal bonds 'a new critter,’ lawyers say

Tuesday, January 26, 2010
(Updated 5:47 am)

GREENSBORO — City and county leaders have had many questions in recent weeks concerning a key federal effort to inject money into local communities.

To those whose responsibility is sorting all that out, that comes as little surprise.

“These bonds are a whole new critter,” said Guilford County Attorney Mark Payne. “It’s easy to be confused about them, even if you know about other types of bonds.”

Payne is talking about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted last year by the Obama administration. The act allows communities to designate certain projects that could be eligible for preferential financing.

The financing is designed to stimulate construction, jobs and growth in communities.

Greensboro was given $19 million to “allocate,” while Guilford County’s “allocation” was $9.8 million.

The City Council and Board of Commissioners have allocated the bulk of their shares to a proposed downtown luxury hotel at South Davie and February One Place, across from the International Civil Rights Center & Museum.

The largest concern: What happens if bond-backed projects — especially the hotel — should fall on hard times and fail?

Not to worry, Payne says.

“There is just no way — no circumstance — where the local governments, cities or counties that use the recovery zone bonds will be liable,” Payne said. “We couldn’t even design them that way. The federal statute that created the bonds doesn’t allow for it.”

The bonds aren’t government money — or even government-backed loans.

Instead, they’re basically IOUs issued by local government bond authorities. Institutional investors — usually banks or mutual funds — buy them because the interest they yield is tax exempt.

Once the bonds are sold, the developer must provide a letter of credit from a bank that would back the bonds should the project fail, Payne said.

Raleigh attorney Mary Nash Rusher, who will act as counsel to Guilford’s bond authority on the projects, said this financing will work like industrial development bonds.

But where industrial development bonds are more restrictive, Rusher says this new financing can be used  for nearly any business making capital improvements in a designated “recovery zone” like Guilford County.

The projects need only be approved by local governments and then deemed “financially viable” by the Local Government Commission.

That designation, Rusher said, will require a letter of credit from a bank taking responsibility for the debt.

So what happens if the Local Government Commission decides a project is too risky financially?

For the project’s investors, it’s back to the drawing board to seek more conventional financing. But the local governments — Greensboro and Guilford County, in this case — lose their “allocation.” It reverts back to the state.

That’s why backing the right project is so important, Rusher said.
 

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

buzzman

January 26, 2010 - 5:42 am EST

Why is the N&R devoting so many articles to the downtown hotel project?

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:51 am EST

Buzzman:

I imagine the scope and attention and public interest of this project qualifies. That was a ignorant statement. I'm kinda sorry I responded to it. :-/

fisher

January 26, 2010 - 4:29 pm EST

The N&R editorial-ist-er-people wrote a few weeks back that they will hold Rashad Young accountable to the penny in regards to the aquatic center not going over budget. Yet with this project, there isn't the same ardent curiousity, either with the budget of the hotel or whether certain people are unfairly benefiting from some backroom dealings.

Norm*

January 26, 2010 - 6:38 am EST

It's their job? It helps sell papers?

mohair.sam

January 26, 2010 - 7:09 am EST

The N&R is quite right to cover this in depth. One thing I'd like to know more about: Who made the decision to put all this money into one project? Why this project? Is it economically viable, and what is that judgment based on?

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:49 am EST

The allocation of money is based on the size and scope of the project. The project that would generate the most jobs and have the most impact within the community.

jeffreyhsykes

January 26, 2010 - 11:43 am EST

Here are some findings from a consultant sent to the city regarding the project's economic viability:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25506692/HVS-1-18-10

"The developer’s projection of occupancy at the proposed hotel over the first five years is highly unlikely to be achieved given the recent occupancy levels achieved by the four hotels that will be primary competitors of the proposed hotel."

and ...

"The 2009 HVS Hotel Valuation Index report issued in October 2009 lists Greensboro (ranked 63) near the bottom of 65 cities in the U.S. for projected changes in per-room value from 2006 to (Projected) 2013. Hotel values in Greensboro are projected by HVS to fall -47.7% between 2006 and 2013."

GCS Parent

January 26, 2010 - 9:39 am EST

All right N&R use your investigative reporting skills and find out which local bank has agreed to back this project. Bridget Chisolm has to provide the credit letter to get the bonds issued. What bank has looked at the business plan and signed on?? That would go A LONG WAY in quieting local concerns about the vialbility. So, N&R go get that interesting news item and run a story. My bet is there isn't one! And without that this project gets a NO, and we lose the allocation. We will have 2 very special people to thank for that... Skip & Deena!

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:57 am EST

GCS:

Skip and Deena are not the only parties involved in this project. They are not even the principal investors. There is nothing wrong with seeking and wanting additional information. But stop placing blame before you have said information.

citywatcher

January 26, 2010 - 10:50 am EST

seems like every big thing built in the city always has to be controversal whether its finance privately or publically. The swim center was the most recent project and before that the baseball stadium which led to a rediculous referendum to ban downtown stadiums. Fortunately that didnt pass. Next thing you know these naysayers will want to ban the construction of downtown hotels.

GCS Parent

January 26, 2010 - 11:50 am EST

What privately financed project faced such scrutiny?

Swim center - public money
Ball stadium - public money

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search