 |
| Tastes good - Trust me |
And yeah, we admit it. We naively "took the bait" on this story too.
Within Ms. Beyer's story, she "cherry picked" these 'alleged" Weber County Comptroller Dan Olsen "quotes" (so-called) and conclusions among other things:
“We borrowed enough money so that Weber County can make the bond payments for the first two years”
“In other words, the county, not Summit, will be making payments of just over $1.5 million for the next few years.”
Entirely untrue, says Mr.Weber County Comptroller Dad Olsen in a "viral" email missive which we received from yet another sharp-eyed and alert reader later in the weekend, wherein Mr. Olsen responds thusly:
Read the Dan Olsen full email here (published with Mr. Olson's explicit permission, after our morning telephone interview):Specifically, your article quotes me as saying, “We borrowed enough money so that Weber County can make the bond payments for the first two years” (emphasis added). I would never say such a thing because it’s not true.
Again you write, “In other words, the county, not Summit, will be making payments of just over $1.5 million for the next few years.” This sentence is completely false. Weber County is NOT paying any portion of the bond, nor would we have ever agreed to do so. You seem to have misunderstood how “capitalized interest” and “special assessments” work, so let me try again.
Yep, that's right. The terms of the Weber County Commission-approved $17 million water, sewer and road infrastrucure bonding apparently comports to these terms, as set forth in the link above, wherein we've highlighted the pertinent parts:
Thus we see an interesting new local story angle popping up here, and therefore ask these questions of our home-town newspaper:The first two years of bond payments come from cash that was included in the bond amount. So, of the $17.6 million bond, we put approximately $3 million into an account where it will be drawn down as bond payments come due during the first two years. Summit is then responsible for approximately $1.5 million in bond payments for the next 18 years. If we had not utilized “capitalized interest,” the bond would have been smaller, approximately $14.5 million, and Summit’s annual debt payment would have been about $1.2 million over 20 years. Either way, Summit pays the whole thing, and the County doesn’t pay a dime on the bonds.
If we had not utilized “capitalized interest,” the bond would have been smaller, approximately $14.5 million, and Summit’s annual debt payment would have been about $1.2 million over 20 years. Either way, Summit pays the whole thing, and the County doesn’t pay a dime on the bonds. [Emphasis added].
- Will the Standard-Examiner publish a retraction?
- If so, when and where, other than some dismal backpage, which nobody will ever see?
Comments anyone?
Just axin', LOL!
12 comments:
Makayla Brieyer should be fired!
it's still absurd than NOTHING was received in RETURN for the bond. Risk is being assumed by the county and the county could have received something in return; they are poor negotiators to say the least!
True. Summit could still go belly-up!
The reason that a government backed bond has a lower interest rate is because the government assumes a large part of the risk for the bond holders who are then willing to accept a lower rate of interest.
My questions for the county commissioners are:
1. Was a risk assessment done and if so, how was it done?
a. Was the Summit Groups track record of real estate developments critically evaluated as part of quantifying the risk?
b. Was the total long-term debt service that Summit must meet for both the Phase I development and the purchase of the ski area considered as part of the risk assessment for its potential impact on their ability to assume bond payment in two years?
c. Does the Summit Group have a credit history which indicates their ability to incur and meet large, long term debt payments?
2. How many other developers has the county backed with a government backed bond of this magnitude?
3. For how many other county backed bonds has the county ever agreed to use the concept of "capitalized interest" for the developers convenience?
4. What property is included in the "special assessment area". Is it only the Phase I property or does it include the ski area?
a. How was the property in the "Special Assessment area" (SAD) valued for purposes of securing the bond and who did the assessment?
5. Was there a hearing held, as required by law, before establishment of the SAD that allowed interested persons to speak for or against the proposed bond action?
I believe that more--MUCH MORE-- scrutiny and debate should have gone into this bond issue before committing taxpayers to the risks we have assumed for a private developer. Part of that debate should have also included the assumption of ownership by county for the road being developed given that it is more than just a road into another subdivision in terms of taxpayer costs.
Finally, I would urge you not to spend LESS time examining and debating the actions of the county commission regarding Summit and the potential liabilities for taxpayers, but MORE time looking at the details, which is where the real issues are.
Sadly, It is disconcerting to see you say that you will spend more time examining what the reporter in question writes when the issues that she raised are still valid,. If the quotes used were not accurate, they can be corrected and apologies given in a civil manner. For some, this is akin to "shooting the messenger" which might be viewed as a good thing, especially in the case of Summit which has a track record of tightly controlling what information they release and who in the media they release it to.
Careless mistake --it will stir needless concern
A careless act that will cause needless concern
Great analysis and critique. When your blogmeister said that "Weber County Forum will spend far less time henceforth scrutinizing the
actions of the Weber County Commission, and far more time examining the
accuracy of Mikayla Beyer stories," that was for the most part tongue-in-cheek. Of course the Commission's decisions demand close scrutiny. That's what the WCF comments section is all about, by the way. [wink]
This is really a great comment. I think the moderator should make this a separate post.
The road they're building only services a residential community, and although Summit is paying for the road, the total cost* by the county issuing this bond should be considered.
*Total Cost to County= Maintenance of a residential road at 8400 ft + Plowing in an area that gets 500 inches of snow per year...when will the county plow and maintain my driveway for free?
1. Aren't all county roads plowed? I know that the county road in front of my house gets plowed by the county.
2. Since when is a county road a driveway?
3. Most of the road to PM is a state road.
4. Don't the funds to maintain county roads come from our property taxes? Won't these people be paying property taxes?
1. Is your county road at 8300 ft?
2. Is the county road that meets your driveway a dead-end road?i.e. only services a private development?
3. Are there public access points off of your country road?
4. Is there a concierge cabin on your county road?
5. Don't people have to buy the real estate for the real estate to generate property tax?
1. No...my property taxes aren't as much either....
2. Yes as a matter of fact it does...as do many in the county.
3. No.
4. No...and that is of issue.
5. No. Doesn't somebody have to own it for there to be a buyer? Someone is already paying taxes on the property...and when lots get platted tax rates go up...you don't have to wait for a buyer.
Post a Comment