Leonard

"The fact that they haven't said a word shows that they aren't really against 380s at all, just Walmarts." Walmart doesn't have a 380 that I'm aware of. I understand that you're a lawyer, do you go on and on to total strangers in chat rooms about lawsuits you may or may not file in the future? Is that what you call practicing good law? Like s3mh said, the 380 states that the items in the 380 "must be developed to serve the Project". Parker also said that the 380 was "interest free" less than a week before the 380 went on council's agenda. I wouldn't put too much stock in what she says, but you might want to wonder why they did approach Ainbinder about the 380.

well maybe samagon will do it then.

I hope RUDH goes after both the HEB Gulfgate and the Kroger 380.

Ill-informed? You're the one that calls it noodling, when it's clearly catfisting. I'm not sure how anybody's comments here, ill-informed or otherwise are coercive.

Redscare: "That is a rather large disagreement, since the only possible required upgrades would be turn lanes and a stoplight on Yale, a project that would cost no more than about $175,000." Dude, read the 380. I know without going back to look the traffic light alone is estimated at $200K. And then you gotta add on 20% soft costs and 20% contingency on top of that for $288K just for the stop light.

In summary: We all agree that the City is financing infrastructure through Ainbinder at an unknown and uncapped interest rate. We all agree that some of the infrastructure is required for the development, and some is not. We all agree that the City will ultimately pay for all of the infrastructure in the 380 up to $6.05M plus unknown and uncapped interest, regardless if it is required for the development or not. The only thing we disagree on is what infrastructure is required for the development and what is not required.

samagon - which street are you talking about?

Exactly. The City is paying for infrastructure that the development should be required to pay for. The traffic light and the turn lane being two examples. Even you must concede that some of the money for sewer, water and storm water connections would be required. Just because you want to argue that it's not required doesn't make it true. It's all required. The onsite detention wasn't required, so they took it out. The traffic light at Koehler and Heights wasn't required, so they took it out. They took these items out because they weren't required. They left in the stuff that is required. The park and median improvements are the equivalent of the Olivewood "donation" in the Kroger 380 - designed to make it "look good" but costing a small fraction of the total. The Olivewood "donation" is obviously skeevy (I think donating to Olivewood is a good thing, by the way - it's skeevy for the City and Kroger to say that Kroger is donating to Olivewood when they are getting reimbursed plus 5.17% interest) but the park and median work here is the same sort of thing. These agreements were put together by the same City employees.

Of course it's an estimate. Contingency can ONLY be on an estimate. Actual amounts are never spent on "contingency", they are spent on actual stuff. You're the one that originally said these amounts are too high. I was agreeing with you.

I think 5% contingency would be more in line, and not on top of soft costs. The Kroger 380 has 10% contingency, not on top of soft costs. Although the Kroger 380 includes contingency on the $40K "donation", which makes no sense. I've read the Ainbinder 380 many times, starting when it first came out. Yes, I have gone back to refer to it. I'll try to find a link to the Ainbinder TIA.

You are absolutely right - the costs listed in the 380 are probably much too high - and 20% soft costs and 20% contingency on top of that is way out of line. All of the water, sewer and storm sewer connections are listed as belonging to a street - possibly because they run under the street. For example, half of Bonner (one lane) was torn up for the sanitary sewer connection - it's listed under the Bonner Street section. Just to make the sanitary sewer connections the 380 Exhibit C lists these costs as over $70K (not including any road work). I guess you could have saved the City tens of thousands of dollars on just this work alone. But you can read the 380 yourself and see what they say it all costs. The Koehler extension is listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis: "As part of the proposed retail development additional roadway improvements are planned as a deliberate effort to enhance mobility, provide access and reduce the impact of this development on traffic." It's required, like the traffic lights and the turn lanes. The 380 itself calls the Improvements (the Exhibit C list) "necessary to serve the Project".

TheNiche - you're wrong about the infrastructure not being required. They have to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. Surely you concede that these items in the 380 are required (Walmart needs water for it's low flow urinals and somewhere to flush them to). They have to provide traffic controls - it's in the Traffic Impact Analysis they had to commission. For example, the $200K traffic signal at Yale and Koheler is REQUIRED for the development - the developer should pay for this. The idiotic language in the 380 saying they have to conform to codes and ordinances means nothing - of course they have to conform to codes and ordinances - whether or not there is a 380. If COH does not pay the entire amount on the 15th month anniversary of the grand opening of the Walmart, the interest rate is 10%. In the Council discussion of the Kroger 380, CM Clutterbuck said COH can borrow money with tax exempt bonds at 2.55%, or taxable bonds at 4.06%. Both of these are lower than 4.25%. Ainbinder most likely thinks this is a good deal or they wouldn't have made it. If they CERTAINLY would rather have the money than have it tied up in infrastructure, then CERTAINLY they wouldn't have made this deal.

It's called an Infrastructure and Financing Agreement, so maybe it is a loan. But it's definitely not a loan TO Ainbinder. If it is a loan, it's a loan FROM Ainbinder TO the City. To pay for stuff Ainbinder should be paying for.

It's easy to see in the Kroger one. Kroger is making a $40K "donation" to Olivewood. For this faux-lanthropy, Kroger gets paid back the $40K plus 5.17% interest. That's a pretty good rate. Same deal with the stuff Ainbinder is doing, except we don't know the interest rate.

The developer bothers with it because it gets the City to reimburse them for all of the items in the 380, the vast majority of which they are required to do. Plus interest. So they do the work on the bayou, they get paid back plus an uncapped amount of interest at an uncapped rate. They're making money on it.

The Houston Press links to Ordinance 99-674 in this article: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/10/heights_walmart_ainbinder_380.php Follow the Houston 380 Ordinance link. SilverJK, yes, it's me Leonard making this post. s3mh - I like my bridge icon. Speaking of bridges...

The "blank check" statement is because the 380 intially allowed a single City staffer increase the amount of the 380 w/o it going back to Council. I don't remember which staff member. The Parker Administration amended the 380 to cap the 380 at $6.05M (interest is outside the cap, however) because of protests from RUDH and others. SilverJK, great input to the debate, however, it was s3mh who brought up the 99-674 Ordinance, although I have read it.

Redscare, I repeat: replacing Yale is not in the 380 Exhibit C on the City's website. Samagon, "to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality". Ainbinder said the project would go forward without the 380. Therefore, the 380 does not stimulate anything. I'm hoping that RUDH sets some legal precedence.

Redscare, the current storm water system isn't big enough to handle the runoff from Walmart and keep the parking lot from flooding, that's why they are replacing it - to provide bigger pipes. There is nothing in the 380 Exhibit C list I linked to about replacing Yale, only providing a left turn lane. The requirement is to return the street to the condition before the cuts were made. Patching is not allowed unless the street is on the 5 year plan. Samagon, hopefully RUDH will win it's lawsuit against this 380. I stand by my statement, if it was originally intended for private enterprise to provide loans to the City at uncapped interest to fund improvement the developers would have been required to do, they would have listed it.

The traffic control measures in the 380 are all required in the Traffic Impact Analysis that Ainbinder had prepared as required by the City. This is a fact. Murphy's Deli is not required to open in the Ainbinder 380 for reimbursement - the Walmart is. That's why Walmart is relevant to the 380 and Murphy's Deli has nothing to do with it. This is a fact. "As a statement of fact, your comments are either ill informed or coercive; I have not decided which." You don't know what a "fact" is, a "fact" either is or isn't, it's not something that you decide.

TheNiche, I don't support ANY 380's. I don't know if RUDH does or not. How could Walmart not "need" the infrastructure in the 380? They are required to connect to water, sewer and storm sewer. They are required to put in traffic control measures (turn lanes and traffic signals). My comments are neither ill informed nor coercive.

s3mh - you are exactly right. 380's were not set up to be loans TO the City, they're supposed to be loans or grants FROM the City. Both the Ainbinder and Kroger 380's are set up as loans to the City for work that should be paid for by the developer.

"That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction. " Ponzi schemes have been around for over 100 years.

Redscare, if you want to see the context, read the 380. You can find them all here: http://204.235.237.46/finance/ecodev/380.html I don't recall lambasting anyone, or using saying anything about corruption or cronyism.

Well I hope we get to find out exactly how much the City pays for this 380. The Kroger one is awful too even though it does have some schedule and a fixed interest rate. The HEB one is just ridiculous.