What it will do is require local Utah entities, like the Ogden RDA, to rigorously 'check out" prospective lessees who are designated to pay down lease revenue bond debt, under formal auspices of generally-recognized accounting principles.
We have a class of "annointed" but inexperienced and financially-reckless "rogue lay clergymen" still thinking they're running Ogden because they believe "God" "ordained" them.
What we need, I think, is a bill like Neil Hansen has on the table.
Here's the prefacatory text to Rep. Hansen's bill:
This bill modifies the Local Government Bonding Act to require certain contract clauses related to the financial condition of a private entity that is making principal or interest payments on lease for revenue bonds. Highlighted Provisions: to this is bill:And here's a full link to the text of the bill on the Utah State Legislative site.
Requires any pledge, contract, or agreement between a local political subdivision and a private entity to include provisions that allow the local political subdivision to: independently assess the ability of the private entity to meet its financial obligations if the pledge, contract, or agreement involves lease payments for the repayment of a revenue bond; and rescind or amend the pledge, contract, or agreement if the assessment finds that the private entity is unable to meet its financial obligations and the local political subdivision determines it is necessary to protect its financial interests;
Requires the local political subdivision to ensure the independent assessment is complete prior to entering into a pledge, contract, or agreement and at least annually;
Requires independent assessment to be performed using audited financial statements provided by the private entity;
Requires the audited financial statements to include an opinion by an independent certified public accountant indicating the financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America;
And requires that the independent assessment shall determine whether there are adequate available net assets or a reasonable expectation of sufficient future cash flows and revenues in excess of expenses to provide for the lease payments during the next reporting period.
Rep. Hansen needs concerned Ogden citizens' active support on this.
E-mail your legislator now.
This should be a bi-partisan effort, BTW. Everybody who knows anybody knows Rep. Hansen and I usually work the opposite sides of the political-party-partisan aisle.
Nevertheless, I throw my whole-hearted support to Neil Hansen on this.
This is just another way to hamstring the local neoCON giveaway artists, and require them to behave as conscient adults.
TIME IS SHORT ON THIS. The House committee votes on this tomorrow,January 23, 2006, at around 2:30 p.m.
We need to inundadate them with emails. Better yet... get thee down to the Capitol Building.
9 comments:
Wow! Thanks, Rudi, for this information. Neil has my full support.
This is a very important bill.
Please contact your representative to support HB0113.
The Ogden RDA should have required these terms in its mall deal with FatCats and Gold's Gym.
This puts the Ernest situation in perspective. A good Bill that should be passed, as judging from Ogden's RDA projects suggests.
Let's get behind Neil Hansen on this! Contact your legislators and tell them to save Ogden and vote for HB0113!
It is simply amazing that this requirement doesn't already exist!
Unfortunately, even if this passes, the Godfreyites will just jimmy the process to make it appear that they are following the law. They are masters at subverting the "spirit" of the law. A lot of this sort of stuff is very subjective, and that includes auditor's interpretations of GAP!
Also, this sort of rule still would not have filtered out the likes of Health South! (or Enron, Arthur Anderson, MCI, etc)
If I read the legislative page correctly, this bill passed but is being held for amendment?? What is the amendment, anyone know?
Is that on the page?
Dian:
I just got off the phone with Trevor Hansen, Rep. Hansen's son/legislative intern.
He informs me the bill was "passed," in the sense it was held in committee for possible amendment, and NOT passed on to the full House.
Trevor explains that some of the committee needed "clarification."
Translation: The Utah legislature is still composed largely of farmers.
This is no big deal, actually, as it will afford Rep. Hansen additional time to fine-tune the bill's language (which I actually believe could have been more precise.)
It also affords time for those of us at the grass roots to identify committee members, and conduct more precise citizen lobbying.
I have a call in to Rep. Hansen. I'll advise on what we can do next.
Stay tuned, (which is always sound general political advice.)
I will then suggest an amendment.
I think it should be broadened to include any dealings a political subdivision has with a private entity in which the political subdivision...is at financial risk because of the relationship?
(No, because they would argue about what risk means.)
Borrows or invests tax dollars in the interests of the private entity?
(They would quibble about whose interest this really was in.)
An entire list of how tax dollars are used in dealings with private entities, and an audit demanded of private entity for every one?
(Bean counter mentality--easy to get around because scenario would not exactly fit specifics on list.)
Any and all dealings with private entities which involve public monies and/or include future returns to the public coffers?? Audit demanded here?
That last sounds good. Maybe specific is better though, in terms of getting bills passed. Have no idea of this, really.
You've bought the whole RDA Lie Kit-and-Kaboodle, Steve Larsen.
While you address a singular part of the redevelopment problem, i.e, the need for an increasing proprty tax base, you blithely ignore the objects of Utah redevelopment law (It's Utah Law, BTW -- Not the federal congress.)
When you mistakenly characterize the selling of a piece of raw land to Ernest as a simple sale of "raw" property you completely mischarachterize the tranaction.
It becomes a public transaction anytime the public is required to incur debt to facilitate the transaction.
Your analysis, Steve, is simplistic and juvenile, in that you only look at one side of the transaction. I'll go further and say you've bought the Godfrey party line.
The Godfrey line conflicts with most rational economists, BTW.
Read an econ 101 text, please, before you make another dumbass post here, Steve.
Better yet, apply your feeble mind to your "Choo-choo project."
NEXT!
Your socialist handlers have no doubt failed to supply you with enough information to 'splain what happens if Ernest Health goes broke.
New comments are not allowed.