news-record.com

NEWS

Bond authority wants financing information on hotel

Thursday, January 28, 2010
(Updated 10:08 am)

 GREENSBORO — A key Guilford County board won’t let a proposed downtown hotel move closer to federal stimulus financing without more information on its viability — including what bank will assume responsibility if it should fail.

“We would like to at least see a financial commitment from a lender,” said George Brumback, chairman of the Guilford County bond authority board. “Because then, we’re going to know it’s been vetted.”

Brumback’s group must approve the project before it can move on to the state Local Government Commission, which can then approve the project for federal recovery zone bonds.

The bonds were part of a federal stimulus package approved last year to spur construction, jobs and investment in communities.

The low-interest funding is privately backed; no local tax money would be at risk. 

“Before we kick the can down to Raleigh, we like to make sure we’re not sending something that won’t fly,” Brumback said at a review meeting Wednesday.

Brumback said he doesn’t want to see the project “get crucified” by the Local Government Commission. If that commission rejects the hotel project, the allotted bond money sanctioned by Greensboro and Guilford County — $27 million — would  revert to the state, not Guilford County.

State officials will want to know what bank or investment group will provide a letter of credit for the project, taking responsibility if it fails, Brumback said, so the bond authority would like the same information.

But representatives of the project at the meeting were reluctant to provide much more information.

Eric Pristell, a lawyer representing the project, said the group would be able to reveal which national hotel chain would act as the “flag” for the hotel by the time it goes before state review.

Pristell said there was no need for the county bond authority to scrutinize the project as closely as banks and investors ultimately will.

“You’re not an underwriter,” Pristell said to the authority board. “That’s not your role.”

Mike Weaver, whose business group owns the upscale O. Henry and Proximity hotels, was at the meeting and urged the authority to be cautious  before approving the project, which would directly compete with his own hotels.

Weaver and business partner Dennis Quaintance have spoken out about what they called  insufficient review of the hotel request by the City Council and Guilford County commissioners last month.

“You are elders in this community,” Weaver said to the board members. “The community trusts you to make good judgments.”

Weaver warned that should a downtown luxury hotel  fail — an independent study presented to the City Council last week suggests the business plan is not sustainable  — it likely would be bought by a less prestigious chain, sit empty or be demolished.

George House, part of the hotel project’s development team, said Weaver was out of line.

“I’m sitting here listening to my competitor lecture you on your responsibility not to let our project go forward,” House said.

House traded barbs with Weaver throughout the meeting. House rose to his feet after Weaver questioned whether the city would have to pay for improvements to the downtown area to make the hotel possible.

“This is the kind of gamesmanship we have to deal with every day!” House exclaimed.

The authority adjourned without taking any action but said it would meet again to hear more about the project.  That should allow the developers time to present enough financial information to move forward, Brumback said.

Mary Nash Rusher, a lawyer representing the authority on the bonds, said local bond authorities often rely on the Local Government Commission to do the heavy vetting for such projects. 

But Rusher said revealing financial backers and proving a project’s viability is a standard the authority uses in most industrial development bond cases.

Rusher said the caution was not unusual given that Guilford could lose any financing set aside for projects that don’t pass muster with the commission.

“It’s definitely true this whole process has been rushed,” Rusher said. “But traditionally, when someone comes to the authority, they are able to say how they’re going to be financed.”

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.

Panacea

January 27, 2010 - 10:28 pm EST

Good. With any luck, Guilford County will not be on the hook for yet another boondoggle.

Mick

January 28, 2010 - 11:44 am EST

In your opinion, what are the other boondoggles the Guilford County is on the hook for?

jackhartjj

January 27, 2010 - 10:42 pm EST

I am so glad folks are starting to look at this stupidity!

citywatcher

January 27, 2010 - 10:51 pm EST

all the hotel group has to do is provide information about which bank is going to back it and the project moves on. I see no issue here. Clearly the writer of this article is trying shed this project in a negative light by the way the title of the article reads. Once the bank is revealed, naysayers wont really have an argument anymore.

Joe Killian

January 27, 2010 - 11:36 pm EST

The board says it wants the project to show that it has firm financial backing before it will allow it to move forward to the next step.

The headline says the project can't move forward without that proof.

Not sure it's possible to play it much more straight than that.

GCS Parent

January 28, 2010 - 9:10 am EST

Joe, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!! This is the nitty gritty that needs to be discussed. Not race. If they cannot prove they have backing, then they are not ready to handle the $54 million responsibility they are asking for. And a national "flag" franchise will not sign on without that backing verfification either. They have to protect their brand. In this credit environment, especially for hotels, it will be a tough sell to say the least. Everyone needs to get ready for the firestorm when the state rejects the funding and we are passed up for the $27 million.

buzzman

January 27, 2010 - 11:59 pm EST

It's obvious that this group doesn't have the financial backing that is needed to go forward with this project. If, even by some more of the funny business that goes on in Guilford County & Greensboro, the GC Bond Authority Board would send this to Raleigh, it will be stopped at that point.
So, my prediction is that it just isn't going to happen! Hopefully, this doesn't kill the opportunity for Greensboro & Guilford County to use the program.

citywatcher

January 28, 2010 - 9:23 am EST

Thanks for changing the title of the article Joe

forusa

January 28, 2010 - 10:33 am EST

You may say no "local" tax dollars will be involved in this project but rest assured our federal tax dollars will support this project. Lending institutions don't make low interest loans for projects like this without federal subsidies.....our tax dollars. It may be inappropriate to say no local tax dollars will be involved. What about infrastructure that will be funded with our local tax dollars? Taxpayers do stand to lose if this project fails so I hope the Bond Commission and the Local Government Commission will step up to the plate and do some serious vetting.

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