Proposed TIF to be Backed by City’s General Revenues

Remember the first TIF project in the City of St. Louis? The failed St. Louis Marketplace on Manchester Road! Well, it was the only such project in the city to be backed by the city’s general revenue. That is, if it did not generate the necessary revenue to pay off the bonds the city would be stuck with the bill. Well, last year, this year and possibly next year that is over a million dollars annually. The city may well be on the hook until the TIF ends in 2011.

Enter John Steffen of Pyramid Construction. In a board bill before St. Louis Estimate & Apportionment Board (E&A) related to 600 Washington (aka St. Louis Centre) the city would be obligating their general “City Revenues” should revenues from the project prove insufficient to cover the annual debt payments for the $14,500,000 TIF. The maturity date is 23 years from approval, a long time to commit general revenue.

The E&A, consisting of Mayor Slay, President Shrewsbury, and Comptroller Green will meet at 2pm Wednesday in the Mayor’s office. The meeting is open to the public. I spoke with the Comptroller’s Public Information John Farrell about this issue, he indicated the Comptroller’s office has some concerns. Here is a list of their concerns distributed at last weeks HUDZ committee (Housing, Urban Development and Zoning) where board bills 313 & 314 were passed out of committee:

The redevelopment agreement and these two board bills are fundamentally flawed.

• The TIF borrowing uses the full faith and credit of the city.
• The building is overpriced at $26 million.
• Board Bill implies the city obligation is $14.5 million, but the term sheet indicates we are obligated for $28 million.
• The office building is not class A space. It must compete in a very crowded market.
• There are 85 TIF’s City-wide only one uses the general fund backing.
• Per the Term Sheet, it appears the city will agree to increase borrowing up to $28 million.
• The moral obligation backing is a pledge of the general fund.
• Using the general fund of the city for TIF bonds is against the city’s financial policy that is based on Best Practices.
• The general fund will be called on to pay $1.2 million per year for the new TIF debt.
• The only other general fund backed TIF is the Market Place TIF to which the general fund paid $1 million this year and last year.
• Using general fund backing sets a bad precedent and is very difficult to reverse.
• A $14 million debt will be added to the city’s balance sheet
• We have huge unmet costs facing the city in the near future. Some are:
• $73 million for past pension costs plus double what we currently pay annually into the foreseeable future.
• $30 million convention center improvements
• $10 to 15 million renovation of 1520 Market Street

I am by no means an expert on TIF financing but I know this much: if the project does not perform well over the life of the TIF bonds I don’t want the city to have to step in and make up the difference. If the project cannot stand on its own after substantial public assistance and the developer is unwilling to make up the difference should it come up short then maybe, just maybe, this is not the right project. Both bills were sponsored by Alderman Phyllis Young (D-7th Ward).
Mayor Slay’s office is in support of the TIF and apparently President Shrewsbury’s office is also leaning in favor as well. As indicated, the Comptroller’s office is not so keen on this TIF but it only take a 2 out of 3 vote to be approved. What do you think? Is the new project worth risking general funds to cover the debt for the next 23 years?

Remember the Days Before Naming Rights?

Maybe I’m more old fashioned than I thought.  I generally like new and progressive thinking but naming rights just has me upset.  Imagine if New York’s Empire State Building had gone through naming rights changes every 5-10 years?  No, I like my buildings to have a name literally etched in stone.  Locally we’ve seen the Kiel Center become the Savvis Center only to become, earlier this year, the Scottrade Center.  Riverport became UMB Bank Pavillion.  I’m sure you can think of others.
Today I read that the Rams’ athletic field in Earth City is being named for Russell Athletics, from the St. Louis Business Journal:

The St. Louis Rams said Friday that the organization signed a deal with Russell Athletic to permanently rename Rams Park, the team’s Earth City, Mo., training ground and media center complex, Russell Athletic Training Center, Home of the St. Louis Rams.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Russell President Doug Kelly said the five-year deal will cost in the seven figures. Financial details of the deal were not disclosed.

WTF?  In the first paragraph the writer says they are going to “permanently rename” the facility yet in the very next sentence notes it is a “five-year deal.”   Does five years now equal permanent in terms of building names? Given much of the quality of new construction maybe that is about right.
Of course we also have naming issues outside of special deals.  Why someone thought trying to call City Hospital the Georgian is beyond me.  Yes, City Hospital Condos maybe doesn’t look so elegant on the marketing literature but everyone knows the building as City Hospital.  Why mess with something that works?   Developers want to change the name of the Chemical Building downtown.  I’m sure you have more examples.

And finally, why aren’t corporate sponsors lining up to put their names on our increasing number of parking garages?  Maybe the Taylor family would like to have the ‘Enterprise Parking Garage at the Old Post Office’? Then the developers would have some more money so perhaps they could buy a nice bronze plaque commemorating the historic Century Building they razed.

Forty Percent of Seats Contested in March Primary

In the first two weeks of filing for St. Louis’ Spring municipal elections a full 40% of the seats are already contested.

Contested Races (6):

• President of the Board of Aldermen
• Wards: 6, 12, 18, 20 and 26.

Unchallenged Incumbents (9) in Wards:

• 2 (Flowers),
• 4 (Shelton),
• 8 (Conway),
• 10 (Vollmer),
• 14 (Gregali),
• 16 (Baringer),
• 22 (Boyd),
• 24 (Waterhouse),
• 28 (Krewson)

Still, the idea of nine officials, over 30% of the full 28-member Board of Aldermen, not having any opposition is disheartening. But, it is not too late to rectify the situation! Filing is open for these seats until 5pm on January 5, 2007. Remember, if nobody runs against these nine and an issue comes up in the next four years the commentary will be, “You should have run against them back in 2007.” Don’t even think about trying to recall one of these nine if in the next four years they get way out of line relative to the ward’s wishes. Without an opponent in this election it will be harder to mount an effective recall. Contested elections is what hopefully keeps our system in check.

I’m not making any judgements here about these nine, although I have my views on each. I truly believe each and everyone of them needs to face an opponent to know they must continue working for the people. Voter apathy is also a problem in our city and that is hard to combat when voters see only a single candidate running for an office. Voters need to be given a choice of candidates to become engaged in the process and to feel like they can made a difference. This city’s reluctance to field candidates for office contributes to voter apathy.

One of the reasons we don’t see any many contested races as we should is people frequently say things like, “Our alderman is a nice guy” or “The alderman took care of my problem.” I have no doubts many if not all are “nice” and probably take care of people’s requests for tree trimming, new dumpster or to have a stop sign added or removed. Running against them (or voting for a challenger) is not saying they are a bad person or they have not been doing an OK job. It simply means that someone else might actually be a better person for the job. Machine politics tactics wants you to believe that challenging an incumbent is some personal affront to them but it is simply saying, “Hey, I think I could do a better job than our current alderman.” The race then becomes the point where all the candidates can make their case why they are indeed the best person to serve the citizens of that ward.

If you live in one of the nine wards where the incumbent is likely to just walk back into office for another four years without even breaking a sweat, I ask that you seriously consider running for office. It is a big step that, even if you do not win, you will feel good about your civic participation. You can raise issues that need to be raised both for your ward and for the city. We don’t get too many chances to make a difference and this is one of them.

Citizens for Modern Transit Comments on Rail for Highway 40

Over on CMT’s blog, Executive Director Tom Shrout has responded to the idea of placing a rail corridor in the center of highway 40 as it is being rebuilt:

Basically East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that the better alternative was to extend MetroLink to West County along Page Avenue. Personally I believe this is the best decision. Locating transit stops in the middle of highways is brutal for the transit customer since the autos whizzing by on each side creates a very unpleasant environment.

Full Post

Passenger Rail Service from St. Louis to Tulsa & OKC?

Tulsa’s leaders are meeting with Amtrak officials later this week to talk passenger rail service between their city and Oklahoma’s capital, Oklahoma City (my hometown). They are seeking a further connection to either Kansas City or St. Louis. Oklahoma was one of the few states that had no Amtrak service at all until 1999 when a connection to Fort Worth ended the 20-year stint without service. Tulsa now wants to get connected via rail.

A Tulsa to OKC line is interesting. The two cities are only 90 minutes apart by car and by air you’ll spend more time in security than in the air. Does the cost of service make sense? Possibly, both OKC and Tulsa have nice old stations and the rail service would bring passengers into the downtown areas as they once did. Also, the road traffic on I-44 between the two cities is considerable at all times. The rail would also connect Tulsa to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.

But the reason for this post is to question coming into Missouri and if so to Kansas City or St. Louis? Selfishly I’m going to argue in favor of St. Louis because that would allow me to take the train back to visit relatives or for my 77-year old father to come visit me easily (his first time on a plane will be in a couple of weeks when we go to California). My dad says my maternal grandparents, both long deceased, came through St. Louis’ Union Station via the train on their way to Canada one year for vacation back in the 1960s. As I-44 replaced more than just the old Route 66, it also replaced the rail service connecting Oklahoma into St. Louis, Chicago and beyond.

As my Dad and I talked on the phone tonight he recalls seeing very fast trains moving through rural western Oklahoma and into Amarillo Tx (yes, I have relatives there too). But he commented that recently he has watched slow moving freight lines in Oklahoma City where the tracks are raising up and down due to their poor condition. I’ve observed similar here. You can’t have efficient passenger service on old and dangerous rail lines.

Are we willing to pay for the infrastructure for quality high-speed trains connecting St. Louis to cities like Chicago, Kansas City or Tulsa? Would people take a fast train rather than drive or fly? I like to think that I would but the only drawback is in these cities, except Chicago, life is no longer connected to the train stations. Yes, in a number of them we can get to other places but it is just not the same as leaving Union Station in Chicago and being connected to the entire city.