<body><div><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=4aYTYT_1EyIUwMw00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=4aYTYT_1EyIUwMw00" width="1920" height="548" >CONVENTION CENTER STATEMENTFollowing is a statement from District 2 Supervisor Trey Baxter of Madison:The Madison County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 today to approve the $48 million conference center proposal that could cost Madison County taxpayers for years.The documents for it were delivered to us late last Thursday, immediately before the Labor Day weekend, exactly when you'd expect them to be delivered if you didn't want details scrutinized. These are lengthy, complicated agreements involving tens of millions of dollars in County-issued bonds and financial obligations that could remain in place for decades.Supervisor Casey Brannon, the other Republican on the Board, and I asked the Board to slow the process down long enough to complete additional due diligence, independently verify important assumptions and address provisions we believed left taxpayers inadequately protected.Unfortunately, Democrats Karl Banks and Paul Griffin, and Gerald Steen, who made himself board president by making backroom deals with the Democrats on the board, rammed a deal through that is at best a bad deal for Madison County taxpayers and at worst a financial disaster. Their lack of regard for legal and financial protections for people who work hard and pay taxes is staggering.The same 3-2 majority also rejected every taxpayer-protection amendment we offered. As is all too often the case, Republicans demanding fiscal responsibility, transparency and real accountability were ignored.I am supportive of the concept of a conference center, but I could not support committing the County to this transaction without stronger protections for the taxpayers. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The amendments we offered were not designed to kill the project. They were designed to make the project a safer deal for Madison County.Casey and I proposed several important safeguards that Steen, Banks and Griffin ignored, siding with a developer with a thin resume over the taxpayers:• Delaying the vote until the developer produced the documents necessary to verify his representations, his management partner confirmed the terms of their relationship, key developer-provided financial assumptions were independently validated, and the Board had adequate time to scrutinize a complex, long-term agreement with a developer whose record of completing comparable projects is limited to say the least.• Requiring an updated appraisal of the actual 13.41-acre parcel the County is purchasing, given the age of the existing appraisals, inconsistencies in the acreage they valued, and a more recent nearby sale. There are legitimate concerns that the County could be paying roughly $1 million to $1.8 million above current market value. The developer acquired the property about a year ago but declined to disclose what he paid. That is his prerogative, but when he is asking taxpayers to enter into a long-term, multimillion-dollar partnership, the lack of transparency is concerning.• Removing the automatic $10 transfer of the taxpayer-financed conference center and replacing it with a recapture or shared-appreciation structure so taxpayers retain some benefit from the value they helped create. Madison County is assuming up to $48 million in risk, yet under the current agreement the developer can ultimately acquire the facility for $10 once the debt is retired. Flowood used a different model allowing the public sector to retain ownership of the conference facility alongside a private hotel development. Madison County should have at least explored a similar structure before agreeing to give up a publicly financed asset for nominal consideration.• Replacing the arbitrary 1% capital reserve with a reserve based on an independent lifecycle capital-needs study, so the County is setting aside enough money for major repairs, renovations and equipment replacement. It may sound like a technical detail, but an inadequately funded reserve could eventually leave taxpayers responsible for millions of dollars in capital costs — money that would otherwise be available for priorities such as roads and bridges.• Requiring another Board vote before issuing the approximately $35.5 million Series B bonds, once the final interest rate and complete debt-service schedule are known. That may sound like another technical financing detail, but it goes to a basic principle: the Board should know the actual cost of the debt before committing taxpayers to it.Every one of those protections was rejected 3-2 by supervisors Gerald Steen, Karl Banks and Paul Griffin.The biggest risk is simple: if the conference center does not perform as projected, Madison County ultimately stands behind the bond payments.The documents provide several sources before County money is used — conference-center net operating revenues, the hotel tourism rebate and the special levy on the hotel property. Those are real protections. But the bond indenture also expressly requires the County to pay any remaining debt-service deficiency and defines County debt-service payments as coming from any lawfully available County revenues, including the General Fund.If the projections are wrong (which Casey and I wanted independently verified but Steen, Banks and Griffin were happy to take the developer's word on), the tourism rebates disappoint (again not independently verified), or the special levy cannot generate enough cash when a bond payment is due, the risk does not simply disappear. Madison County taxpayers are on the hook.At the same time, the private operator is entitled to a management fee based on 5% of gross conference-center revenue regardless of profitability. If the operator underperforms, the county has little to no recourse.The agreements also ultimately provide for the developer to acquire the publicly financed conference center for $10 once the bonds are paid off. Those provisions made it even more important, in my view, to insist on meaningful taxpayer protections before approving the transaction.I hope this project is tremendously successful. I hope the conference center exceeds every projection, the hotel thrives, and Madison County never has to contribute a dollar from its General Fund toward these bonds.But hope is not a substitute for due diligence.Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.When taxpayers are being asked to support a transaction involving as much as $48 million in public financing, our responsibility is not merely to ask whether the project can succeed. It is to ask what happens if it doesn't — and to put protections in place before the County signs the documents, not after the problems occur.</div></body>

Block Source: Madison County Journal

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

Following is a statement from District 2 Supervisor Trey Baxter of Madison:. The Madison County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 today to approve the $48 million conference center proposal that could cost Madison County taxpayers for years. The documents for it were delivered to us late last Thursday, immediately before...

Trey Baxter's convention center vote statement

NewsBreak

Following is a statement from District 2 Supervisor Trey Baxter of Madison:. The Madison County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 today to approve the $48 mil

Trey Baxter's convention center vote statement

Comments