http://capefish.blogspot.com/2007/03/where...-fund-this.html

 

I want to dispell any myths. You cannot use CDT money (aka money for the Marlins ballpark) for schools, roads, etc.

 

The Supreme Court of Florida upheld this law in 1985 as fully constitutional.

A poster to the Marlins Ballpark News brought up a good question.

 

The funding gap for the ballpark right now is $30 million + land. The state tax rebate program is for at least $60 million over 30 years, could become $120 million over 30 years if the Senator from Tampa has his way. The tax rebate would give the county a $30 million surplus to buy land or pay stadium bond debt with.

A poster to the Marlins Ballpark News brought up a good question.

 

The funding gap for the ballpark right now is $30 million + land. The state tax rebate program is for at least $60 million over 30 years, could become $120 million over 30 years if the Senator from Tampa has his way. The tax rebate would give the county a $30 million surplus to buy land or pay stadium bond debt with.

Your idea of a surplus to pay the debt service, and who pays the debt service, is a part of the deal that we don't know. It could have already been included or still under negotiation. Could be the city, county, or the Marlins. If the $120 Million(60 milion present value) figure comes true, that would leave a 30 Million surplus available. Sticking to original 60 Milion figure, or 30 million present value, there would be no surplus.

.

.

Who pays the interest on the $185 million in bonds that need to be issued to cover the Marlins "rent payment contribution". The interest alone is an extra 3-4 million a year in addition to the rent payment itself.

.

.

If that 30 Million surplus comes true, hypothetically, is it intended to pay part of the roughly 100 million in interest needed for the debt service on the 185 million?

A poster to the Marlins Ballpark News brought up a good question.

 

The funding gap for the ballpark right now is $30 million + land. The state tax rebate program is for at least $60 million over 30 years, could become $120 million over 30 years if the Senator from Tampa has his way. The tax rebate would give the county a $30 million surplus to buy land or pay stadium bond debt with.

Your idea of a surplus to pay the debt service, and who pays the debt service, is a part of the deal that we don't know. It could have already been included or still under negotiation. Could be the city, county, or the Marlins. If the $120 Million(60 milion present value) figure comes true, that would leave a 30 Million surplus available. Sticking to original 60 Milion figure, or 30 million present value, there would be no surplus.

.

.

Who pays the interest on the $185 million in bonds that need to be issued to cover the Marlins "rent payment contribution". The interest alone is an extra 3-4 million a year in addition to the rent payment itself.

.

.

If that 30 Million surplus comes true, hypothetically, is it intended to pay part of the roughly 100 million in interest needed for the debt service on the 185 million?

I believe the debt service is covered in the figure given for the total cost. The county typically does this from what I understand. So the $490 million price tag should include everything except any future improvements like renovations.

 

The surplus, if not used for land, could be used in place of some CDT money to pay the debt. So the County could use the CDT money elsewhere.

 

I believe the price tag also includes money in a capital expenditures fund the county likes to set aside for facilities.

 

The current figure is $60 million from the state, that could grow to $120 million under the Tampa plan.

 

But I believe that debt service financing charges (aka interest), capital expenditures, and repayment of the principal on the bonds are included in this price tag.

 

I always thought Dade Muni bonds were price with everything included.

 

For example, they float a $1,000 bond. Investor pays amount to buy it (example, $950) and the County has to pay back $1,000 once it matures. So therefore, the price of the bond being $1,000 in debt to the county, should include all interest charges needed.

 

From the County Manager's Memo on 2/27/07:

A poster to the Marlins Ballpark News brought up a good question.

 

The funding gap for the ballpark right now is $30 million + land. The state tax rebate program is for at least $60 million over 30 years, could become $120 million over 30 years if the Senator from Tampa has his way. The tax rebate would give the county a $30 million surplus to buy land or pay stadium bond debt with.

Your idea of a surplus to pay the debt service, and who pays the debt service, is a part of the deal that we don't know. It could have already been included or still under negotiation. Could be the city, county, or the Marlins. If the $120 Million(60 milion present value) figure comes true, that would leave a 30 Million surplus available. Sticking to original 60 Milion figure, or 30 million present value, there would be no surplus.

.

.

Who pays the interest on the $185 million in bonds that need to be issued to cover the Marlins "rent payment contribution". The interest alone is an extra 3-4 million a year in addition to the rent payment itself.

.

.

If that 30 Million surplus comes true, hypothetically, is it intended to pay part of the roughly 100 million in interest needed for the debt service on the 185 million?

I believe the debt service is covered in the figure given for the total cost. The county typically does this from what I understand. So the $490 million price tag should include everything except any future improvements like renovations.

 

The surplus, if not used for land, could be used in place of some CDT money to pay the debt. So the County could use the CDT money elsewhere.

 

I believe the price tag also includes money in a capital expenditures fund the county likes to set aside for facilities.

 

The current figure is $60 million from the state, that could grow to $120 million under the Tampa plan.

 

But I believe that debt service financing charges (aka interest), capital expenditures, and repayment of the principal on the bonds are included in this price tag.

 

I always thought Dade Muni bonds were price with everything included.

 

For example, they float a $1,000 bond. Investor pays amount to buy it (example, $950) and the County has to pay back $1,000 once it matures. So therefore, the price of the bond being $1,000 in debt to the county, should include all interest charges needed.

 

From the County Manager's Memo on 2/27/07:

 

 

I believe that you're wrong about the $490 Million figure covering everything including the debt service. The memorandum that you provide does shed some insight on the situation. It addresses the debt service issues, and, at least as far as this memorandum goes, it seems to imply that the Marlins are on the hook for the debt service. I belive this is still a negotiating point, and it could wind up to be that the CDT money pays the excess debt service beyond the "rent payments".

.

.

I am sure that you are wrong about your thoughts on municipal bonds in this case. It's an example that is akin to how US Treasury bonds work, but not municipal bonds in this case. A treasury bond investor will invest $950 to get back $1000 in 1 year. Or 500 to get back 1000 in 10 years. The facts here are that the county/city would issue $185 million in municipal bonds, payable over 20-30 years. They need the whole $185 million upfront to pay for the construction. They can't accept 100 million, with the Marlins "rent payments" then being enough to satisfy the investor demand for a 4% return. After all, the construction people are going to want 185 million in TODAY'S dollars. So the county needs to issue 185 million in bonds, and investors invest $185 million. In return, the investors expect a return on their investment. Non-taxable rates are currently 3 1/2-4%. So, an investor needs to get back 4% of 185 million per year(7 million) PLUS an amount over 30 years that equals a present value of 185 million, so that they get their initial 185 million back. That would be another 3-4 million a year. The excess. Who pays? That is just one of the questions in this process.