Today we have the City vote to extend the termination deadline to July 15th. This is due to the Wachovia line of credit request. That vote will take place this morning at 8:30am. Then the County goes to court at 1pm to get the emergency injunction filed by two civil activists(way to go wasting tax payer money "civil activists"...) thrown out. Finally on Friday, the County will vote on the changes forced by the Wachovia line of credit. If all goes well, we'll be right back on track.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1102479.html

 

Marlins stadium deal delayed again

The long quest for a Major League baseball park in Miami is nearly over, but a few unexpected hurdles are causing further delay.

 

 

Latest Marlins stadium renderings BY MATTHEW HAGGMAN

mhaggman@MiamiHerald.com

This was supposed to be the week the Florida Marlins' long-sought new baseball stadium was formally cemented, with bonds issued to bankroll the $515 million structure to rise in Little Havana.

 

Instead, on the eve of the financial closing, two new wrinkles surfaced. One, involving a bank letter of credit, is forcing city and county commissioners to vote -- once more -- on a piece of the stadium puzzle. The other, involving a citizen lawsuit against the deal, is forcing the county to head to court Thursday in an attempt to beat back an injunction.

 

Both events are pushing back the issuance of bonds for at least two weeks.

 

Whether these are merely short-term hiccups or larger hurdles will be revealed soon. But even as stadium backers say they won't slow down construction timetables, the events show that, to the end, building the stadium in South Florida hasn't come easily.

 

''It's been a long and grueling journey,'' said Miami-Dade Commission Chairman Dennis Moss. ``These are the last shots that folks can take to derail the process. But I believe those who supported it will continue to support it, and we will move forward and build this stadium.''

 

Critics, meanwhile, see the last-minute delays as evidence of a mistake in the making.

 

''Good deals come together readily,'' said Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff. ``Difficult, complicated and problematic deals take a great deal of effort and seem never to work out well.''

 

For more than a decade, successive team owners have sought a home for the two-time World Series winners. Those efforts included failed attempts to win funding from the Florida Legislature and, after local government approved the framework for a stadium financing deal in December 2007, a lengthy -- and successful -- legal fight against project critic Norman Braman.

 

In March the club moved closer than ever, winning final approval from city and county commissioners for a 37,000-seat stadium on the site of the former Orange Bowl in Little Havana.

 

The final hurdle: getting the money to build it. This week the county was set to sell $405 million in bonds -- backed by the promise of repayment from tourist taxes -- to both refinance existing debt and pay for stadium construction.

 

Prospects appeared bright: a month ago the county won good reviews from Wall Street bond rating agencies, in part by promising to dip into general funds not coming from property taxes if tourist taxes don't cover financial obligations.

 

But instead of raising the money to build, the stadium deal will be back in court and in front of city commissioners again.

 

Thursday morning, Miami commissioners will vote to alter the termination date of the deal from July 1 to July 15. Once that date passes, all parties -- city, county and Marlins -- are on the hook.

 

The date change was triggered by a $100 million letter of credit from Wachovia Bank for a portion of the bonds; the bank is requiring it get paid its fees first, before tax revenues go toward debt or reserve payments. Under the current language, Wachovia gets paid last after debt and reserve payments are made.

 

Amending that provision requires two votes over the course of two weeks, followed by a 10-day period before the change becomes law; that is why the termination date is being extended. In a specially-scheduled meeting Friday morning, county commissioners will vote to amend the bond provision and -- like the city -- move to give 15 more days to finalize the transaction.

 

Meanwhile, between the commission votes, lawyers for the county and two local activists will appear before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Lawrence A. Schwartz at 1 p.m. Thursday.

 

The judge will hear an emergency motion to stop the county from selling the bonds. On Monday, neighborhood activists Graciela Solares and Elvis Cruz filed for a temporary injunction, claiming county plans to use bond proceeds to refinance existing debt violates the state constitution. Their claim is part of a broader lawsuit seeking to stop construction of the stadium, filed in April.

 

County leaders did not previously express concern that the suit could deter investors from purchasing bonds. But an emergency motion seeking an immediate injunction was viewed as something that could chill buyers. ''We don't feel comfortable going forward with this cloud over us,'' said Miami-Dade spokeswoman Victoria Mallette.

 

In advance of Thursday's hearing, lawyers for the county filed legal papers contending the emergency motion should be rejected because the plaintiffs fail to allege a constitutional violation. They also say the claims were previously made -- and rejected -- in car dealer Braman's lawsuit last year.

 

''The only difference between the two suits is in the identity of the plaintiffs,'' said a motion filed by assistant county attorneys Lee Kraftchick and Robert A. Duvall.

 

If the challenges can be surmounted, county officials hope to sell the stadium bonds at month's end.

 

Time is short. Groundbreaking is scheduled for July 18, with the stadium scheduled to be ready for opening day 2012. ''We are ready to get a deal done and break ground,'' said county spokeswoman Mallette. ``We have to deal with this lawsuit and sell the bonds. We feel confident on both counts.''

The city just voted and passed the amendment 3-2. Next up is the court hearing at 1pm today and the County vote tomorrow. Hopefully the Judge throws out this "emergency injunction" and we can get back on track.

The city just voted and passed the amendment 3-2. Next up is the court hearing at 1pm today and the County vote tomorrow. Hopefully the Judge throws out this "emergency injunction" and we can get back on track.

 

 

fauowls44, keep us posted. ill check back in a little later.

I'll do my best to keep the thread up to date. Not sure how to check on the court case though. We'll probably have to wait for an article to be written about what went on tonight.

Here's an article on the City vote and an update on the court hearing:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/06/15/daily55.html

 

City extends kill date on stadium dealSouth Florida Business Journal - by Oscar Pedro Musibay and Paul Brinkmann

 

City of Miami commissioners on Thursday approved a modification to the baseball stadium deal they struck with the Florida Marlins and Miami-Dade County, extending the date that all parties have to back out of the deal.

 

The date was changed to July 15, from July 1, after Wachovia, which is providing a $100 million letter of credit toward the project, asked to modify the terms of its deal.

 

County commissioners are to meet Friday to consider Wachovia's request to change the date of when the bank's fees are to be paid. Wachovia is asking it be paid its fees first, instead of after debt and reserve payments are made, as stipulated under the current proposal.

 

In a 3-2 vote Thursday, the city commissioners approved the following:

 

Allow the termination date to be moved to July 15.

Give the county until July 17 to terminate the deal if it has not closed on the bond sale.

Extend the date for the city’s $13 million contribution to July 17.

Amend the provision to allow the city to suspend deposit of its contribution to the project if there is a delay due to litigation.

Amend the warranty deed for the stadium site so that it would revert back to city ownership, if the deal is terminated.

 

In April, Miami-Dade County commissioners approved issuing bonds totaling a maximum of $536 million toward construction of the $640 million, 37,000-seat ballpark.

 

On Monday, opponents of the financing deal filed a motion to stop the bond sale, prompting Miami-Dade to push back the sale of its bond by two weeks.

 

On Thursday, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Lawrence A. Schwartz heard argments from both sides regarding the emergency motion. He said he would try to issue an order by no later than Monday.

 

Grace Solares and Elvis Cruz, who filed suit in February, are behind that effort. The motion for injunction alleges the county is exceeding its constitutional tax and spending powers by issuing bonds tied to the professional sports tax/tourist development tax. The plaintiffs contend that the county is inappropriately using the current bond to repay a prior bond issued in 1992.

 

As a result of the motion, and to avoid a cloud that could affect interest rates on the bonds, the county pushed back the bond sale dates, Miami-Dade spokeswoman Vicki Mallette said Monday.

 

 

So I guess we'll have to wait a few days on the court ruling.

Grace Solares and Elvis Cruz, who filed suit in February, are behind that effort. The motion for injunction alleges the county is exceeding its constitutional tax and spending powers by issuing bonds tied to the professional sports tax/tourist development tax. The plaintiffs contend that the county is inappropriately using the current bond to repay a prior bond issued in 1992.

 

 

 

 

Grace Solares, Miami Roads Neiborhood Civic Assoc., grace@miamiroads.org

 

 

 

here you go guys. have a ball.

You can e-mail them if you want, but the only thing that matters is what the Judge decides. These are just bitter people who are upset that they have failed at every attempt to stop this good deal. According to the latest Herald article, the judge could make his ruling as early as tomorrow. I still stand by my original statement that these people are crazy if they think they know more about the legal aspects of this deal then the lawyers for the Marlins, City, and County that negotiated it. If anything in it was illegal, it wouldn't have made it this far. Braman tried the same arguement with better(i.e. more expensive) lawyers and failed on all counts. Hopefully this too goes the Marlins way and quickly.

You can e-mail them if you want, but the only thing that matters is what the Judge decides. These are just bitter people who are upset that they have failed at every attempt to stop this good deal. According to the latest Herald article, the judge could make his ruling as early as tomorrow. I still stand by my original statement that these people are crazy if they think they know more about the legal aspects of this deal then the lawyers for the Marlins, City, and County that negotiated it. If anything in it was illegal, it wouldn't have made it this far. Braman tried the same arguement with better(i.e. more expensive) lawyers and failed on all counts. Hopefully this too goes the Marlins way and quickly.

 

 

fauowls44, anything new on todays big day?

You can e-mail them if you want, but the only thing that matters is what the Judge decides. These are just bitter people who are upset that they have failed at every attempt to stop this good deal. According to the latest Herald article, the judge could make his ruling as early as tomorrow. I still stand by my original statement that these people are crazy if they think they know more about the legal aspects of this deal then the lawyers for the Marlins, City, and County that negotiated it. If anything in it was illegal, it wouldn't have made it this far. Braman tried the same arguement with better(i.e. more expensive) lawyers and failed on all counts. Hopefully this too goes the Marlins way and quickly.

 

 

fauowls44, anything new on todays big day?

 

Everything passed in the county, now just need to wait for the court case to be dismissed...

You can e-mail them if you want, but the only thing that matters is what the Judge decides. These are just bitter people who are upset that they have failed at every attempt to stop this good deal. According to the latest Herald article, the judge could make his ruling as early as tomorrow. I still stand by my original statement that these people are crazy if they think they know more about the legal aspects of this deal then the lawyers for the Marlins, City, and County that negotiated it. If anything in it was illegal, it wouldn't have made it this far. Braman tried the same arguement with better(i.e. more expensive) lawyers and failed on all counts. Hopefully this too goes the Marlins way and quickly.

 

 

fauowls44, anything new on todays big day?

 

Everything passed in the county, now just need to wait for the court case to be dismissed...

 

wow! excellent!!!!

anything about the court case?

Maybe you guys can answer something for me.

 

When reading about these delays in the Herald, one sentence jumped out at me when they were describing the bond ratings.

 

"Prospects appeared bright: a month ago the county won good reviews from Wall Street bond rating agencies, in part by promising to dip into general funds not coming from property taxes if tourist taxes don't cover financial obligations."

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1102479.html

 

The general fund was a big concern of the stadium opponents. Yet, this article claims that the city/county (??) promised the bond rating agencies that they would dip into this fund, thereby getting a favorable rating on their bond.

 

I'm asking you all if I'm right in thinking that the city/county promised not to dip into the general fund?

The general fund is listed as a secondary pledge. What that basically means is that if the tourist taxes haven't generated enough revenue to pay off the bond, they could be paid by the general fund. Apparently, listing the general fund as a backup is standard practice. It strengthens the bonds and makes it more attractive to investors. That doesn't mean it will ever be touched to pay off the stadium, it merely makes the bonds eaiser to sell.

The general fund is listed as a secondary pledge. What that basically means is that if the tourist taxes haven't generated enough revenue to pay off the bond, they could be paid by the general fund. Apparently, listing the general fund as a backup is standard practice. It strengthens the bonds and makes it more attractive to investors. That doesn't mean it will ever be touched to pay off the stadium, it merely makes the bonds eaiser to sell.

 

 

 

I see. I wonder if the rating agencies asked this same question. I'm surprised the opponents haven't made more of this promise that they would use those to secure a better rating.

 

I guess it's one of those things where you say "sure we'll back these bonds with other money", but they know they won't have to sort of thing.

The general fund is listed as a secondary pledge. What that basically means is that if the tourist taxes haven't generated enough revenue to pay off the bond, they could be paid by the general fund. Apparently, listing the general fund as a backup is standard practice. It strengthens the bonds and makes it more attractive to investors. That doesn't mean it will ever be touched to pay off the stadium, it merely makes the bonds eaiser to sell.

 

 

 

I see. I wonder if the rating agencies asked this same question. I'm surprised the opponents haven't made more of this promise that they would use those to secure a better rating.

 

I guess it's one of those things where you say "sure we'll back these bonds with other money", but they know they won't have to sort of thing.

 

It was a big deal during the past county and city meetings...and yes, the ratings agencies do factor in that the general fund is a secondary pledge. It's something that the stadium opponents on the city and county commissions bring up constantly. But, apparently, it is a pretty common thing to do in this type of bond issue.

The general fund is listed as a secondary pledge. What that basically means is that if the tourist taxes haven't generated enough revenue to pay off the bond, they could be paid by the general fund. Apparently, listing the general fund as a backup is standard practice. It strengthens the bonds and makes it more attractive to investors. That doesn't mean it will ever be touched to pay off the stadium, it merely makes the bonds eaiser to sell.

 

 

 

I see. I wonder if the rating agencies asked this same question. I'm surprised the opponents haven't made more of this promise that they would use those to secure a better rating.

 

I guess it's one of those things where you say "sure we'll back these bonds with other money", but they know they won't have to sort of thing.

 

It was a big deal during the past county and city meetings...and yes, the ratings agencies do factor in that the general fund is a secondary pledge. It's something that the stadium opponents on the city and county commissions bring up constantly. But, apparently, it is a pretty common thing to do in this type of bond issue.

 

 

i dont think we have much to worry about regarding the sale of bonds. i mean isnt wachovia in to by 100 million of these bonds? afterall, i assume that is what this while thing was about today.

 

im sure they have buyers lined up. the bonds will sell.

The general fund is listed as a secondary pledge. What that basically means is that if the tourist taxes haven't generated enough revenue to pay off the bond, they could be paid by the general fund. Apparently, listing the general fund as a backup is standard practice. It strengthens the bonds and makes it more attractive to investors. That doesn't mean it will ever be touched to pay off the stadium, it merely makes the bonds eaiser to sell.

 

 

 

I see. I wonder if the rating agencies asked this same question. I'm surprised the opponents haven't made more of this promise that they would use those to secure a better rating.

 

I guess it's one of those things where you say "sure we'll back these bonds with other money", but they know they won't have to sort of thing.

 

It was a big deal during the past county and city meetings...and yes, the ratings agencies do factor in that the general fund is a secondary pledge. It's something that the stadium opponents on the city and county commissions bring up constantly. But, apparently, it is a pretty common thing to do in this type of bond issue.

 

 

i dont think we have much to worry about regarding the sale of bonds. i mean isnt wachovia in to by 100 million of these bonds? afterall, i assume that is what this while thing was about today.

 

im sure they have buyers lined up. the bonds will sell.

 

 

I agree. It's a moot point. Sell the bonds, get the court cases thrown out, and move along Betty.

 

This stadium deal is so great for the Marlins. I know there were some people that would prefer a waterfront stadium, but I truly believe that waterfront locations are really over-rated. The neighborhood locale, is much more appealing. Back in the 90s when the Reds were trying to get a stadium deal done, there were two possible locations: the riverfront and downtown. Ultimately the riverfront won because ownership used it's weight to get it's way, but a lot of people supported the downtown location, for good reason. Check out this link. It contains old newspaper articles promoting the pros of building in an urban area with a neighborhood nearby. The Marlins are sitting pretty.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=354.0