Future of Heartland Park (and KS Nationals) in jeopardy (3 Viewers)

StarLink
High Speed Internet
Available AnyWhere On Earth
Now $349


Nick, these four are not near qualified to run a professional facility such as HPT. If this is what they got it's not looking to promising, actually I'm a little worried about how Topeka is going about finding a solid investor to start with. Keep us posted your doing a great job.
 
Topeka asks petitioners to secure $45.6M bond if stay is granted

Registered member said:
The city of Topeka and Jayhawk Racing have asked the Kansas Court of Appeals to reject the stay in the Heartland Park Topeka appeal requested by petitioner Chris Imming.

However, if the stay should be granted, both entities request the court make Imming purchase bonds to cover potential damages resulting from the stay.

Jayhawk Racing Properties LLC said that amount should be $5.29 million.

Topeka said, according to a formula under state law, the bond should be $45.6 million.

Should the court grant those requests, Imming would have to pay the amounts if he loses the appeal.

“Without an adequate supersedeas bond, there simply is no chance that the status quo will be preserved pending appeal because Jayhawk not only will face foreclosure actions but it also will very likely be out of business,” reads the 26-page response filed Monday morning from Jayhawk Racing’s law firm, Frieden, Unrein & Forbes, LLP.

A supersedeas bond, the Jayhawk filing reads, is “a customary condition” to requests for a stay in pending appeals and is granted “to ensure that the appellee is protected from damages likely to be incurred during the delay occasioned by the appeal of a favorable judgment.”

“If the Court of Appeals ultimately determines that the Imming Petition is invalid, Jayhawk will have suffered substantial injuries, including the loss of its business, which is generally considered to be an irreparable injury,” Jayhawk’s filing states.

The city based its supersedeas bond amount on an effort to “protect the interest of the city and its taxpayers,” according to the filing from Lathrop & Gage.

If the project doesn’t go through, the city claims, city taxpayers would suffer the immediate loss of $23.5 million. The city came to that figure because, if the plan doesn’t go through, the city would lose its opportunity to pay back the $8.2 million in Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bonds with state sales tax dollars and would lose its interest in the racetrack, which is valued at $15.3 million.

The city also claims an annual economic impact of $160 million that would be lost if the stay were granted.

Based on those figures, the city estimates the first year of losses from the stay to be $182.5 million. According to state law, the city argues, the supersedeas bond should be made for 25 percent of that amount — or $45.6 million.

“The instant case presents a very real and imminent threat of monetary loss to the city should a stay be issued,” the city’s response states.

CoreFirst can acquire free title to the racetrack on Feb. 28 if the outstanding mortgages aren’t paid in full by then.

Imming’s attorney, R.E. “Tuck” Duncan Jr., said he addressed the supersedeas bond issue in his request for the stay, noting Jayhawk Racing’s funding was contingent upon STAR bonds being issued, and therefore wasn’t a guarantee from the start.

“I suggested to the court no bond would be appropriate, since Mr. Imming serves in a representative capacity on behalf of nearly 4,000 Topekans and has no financial benefit from being a defendant in this case,” he said.

The city of Topeka and Jayhawk Racing had until 5 p.m. Monday to submit responses to the request for a stay. The stay, filed Dec. 9, would prohibit Topeka’s city government from moving forward with its proposed purchase of Heartland Park Topeka while an appeal of a recent court decision in the city’s favor remains in progress. The case has been assigned to a panel of Court of Appeals judges Stephen D. Hill, Karen Arnold-Burger and Kim Schroeder.

The appeal is linked to a petition drive initiated after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to authorize the purchase of Heartland Park and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding STAR bond debt.

Topekan Chris Imming responded to the Aug. 12 vote by initiating a petition drive that gained more than the required number of signatures needed to put the matter on the ballot for a citywide election, but the city filed a lawsuit challenging the petition’s legality.

Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks on Nov. 12 ruled the petition invalid. While Duncan filed the appeal Dec. 2, he didn’t file a request for a stay until Dec. 9.

“The stay is necessary to insure that the appeal is neither rendered moot, nor that the district court decision is perceived as having been acquiesced with, and to afford a review of the merits of these important public policy issues,” the 11-page document filed by Duncan said.

Both Jayhawk Racing and Topeka were critical of Imming for not filing a stay in Shawnee County District Court and for the delay in filing the stay.

“Further, even if Imming’s request for a stay was timely or proper, which it is not, Imming has not established, nor can he, that he is entitled to an order that would enjoin the city from moving forward with the HPT Expansion Project,” the city’s response reads.

In requesting the court deny the stay, Jayhawk Racing claims Imming didn’t make the “four-part showing” required in requests for stays. Parties requesting stays during pending appeals are required to show that a strong position exists for the merits of an appeal, that irreparable injury would occur if the stay is denied, that no substantial harm will come to other parties and that public interest favors the stay.

Jayhawk Racing’s filing repeatedly points to shortcomings of Imming’s request for a stay, often commenting on its brevity. It says Imming “not surprisingly” failed to cite authority for many of his positions and describes Imming’s arguments at various points as “somewhat convoluted,” an “entirely circular argument,” “hopeful speculation” and as “extremely difficult to follow.”

Other choice passages include: “A party cannot simply wish away the requirement of a bond because he believes he might ultimately prevail — otherwise, the requirement of a bond would be wholly illusory,” and “Imming’s likelihood of success on appeal is insubstantial, at best.”
 
City won't take action on Heartland Park deal until after first of new year

Registered member said:
The Topeka City Council isn’t expected to take significant further action on its plan to acquire Heartland Park Topeka until after the first of the new year.

The council on Tuesday learned it wouldn’t have a recommendation from staff on a prospective buyer until Jan. 6. Also, the pending stay involving the petition effort likely won’t have a ruling until mid-January — putting off the bond sale until at least then. The city won’t move forward with issuing bonds while a stay in the appeal is pending because it affects the marketability of the bonds, said city attorney Chad Sublet.

“We expect them to rule on this pretty quickly, but it’s the Court of Appeals, and they’ll rule when they rule,” Sublet said.

Topeka’s governing body Tuesday took no action regarding the Heartland Park Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond plan, but spent about 20 minutes publicly discussing updates.

The city on Monday announced it had received four proposals that met qualifications to operate Heartland Park. The four bidders were MK Investments, Larry Sinks, Monopoly Acquisitions LLC and International Motorsports Entertainment and Development Corp.

City manager Jim Colson said he and a team consisting of Sublet, purchasing director Jay Oyler and financial and administrative services director Doug Gerber reviewed the proposals during the weekend and will continue to follow up with the bidders.

He emphasized none of the bidders asked for management fees to run the park.

“We’ve been very clear,” Colson said. “The city’s not going to invest back into this.”

The only way the city would move forward with a partner, he said, is if the city “has no financial risk.”

“If we don’t come up with somebody who meets the expectations that were established by this body, we’ll tell you,” Colson told the council. “At that point, appropriate decisions will be made.”

Only one member from the public signed up to speak on the issue.

Topekan Leo Hafner spoke critically of the city’s plan on several points, including lack of transparency, concern that the four bidders would meet requirements and skepticism about the statement that no one asked for a management fee.

“I just want to make it clear that unless these people are volunteering their time and going to do this for free, that’s a management fee,” he said.

The city, Hafner said, has created a culture of “call it something else and try to make people believe that what we’re going ahead with is forthright.”

“You’re going to do what you’re going to do, but at least be honest with people about it,” he said.

Councilwoman Elaine Schwartz had a couple of pointed questions regarding the request-for-proposal process, driven by numerous emails from her constituents.

First, she asked whether the Heartland Park financials went out to any of the interested buyers.

Sublet said they didn’t, but each bidder had financial teams analyze the facility.

Schwartz also asked whether any of the bidders indicated they would hold events not related to racing.

Colson said the city made it clear “very early on in the process” that it was looking for an agency to run the racetrack as a “12-month business.”

“We’re very much focused on somebody who is going to bring a comprehensive approach to this,” Colson said. “You can’t have a facility that’s built around one weekend.”

Councilwoman Karen Hiller said she had received emails that “bordered on outrage” regarding the bond amount the city wants petition organizer Chris Imming to purchase if the court grants the stay.

The city and Jayhawk Racing on Monday asked the Kansas Court of Appeals to deny the petitioner’s motion for a stay, which would prohibit Topeka’s city government from moving forward with its proposed purchase of Heartland Park Topeka while an appeal of a recent court decision in the city’s favor remains in progress.

However, if the stay is granted, both entities request that the court order Imming to buy bonds to cover potential damages resulting from the stay.

Jayhawk Racing Properties LLC asked that the bond amount be set at $5.29 million to cover the purchase price and its indebtedness.

Topeka said the bond should be $45.6 million — 25 percent of the racetrack’s annual $160 million economic impact and the city’s $15.3 million interest in the property and the $8.2 million owed on STAR bond debts.

Sublet explained the nearly $46 million figure is the amount of money the city stands to lose if the STAR bond plan doesn’t go through.

Imming on Tuesday was ordered to file any response to those motions by 5 p.m. Dec. 22.

The case has been assigned to Court of Appeals Judges Stephen D. Hill, Karen Arnold-Burger and Kim Schroeder.

Topeka’s law firm in the case, Overland Park-based Lathrop & Gage, charged the city $72,428.50 for 233.5 hours for its first month of work.
 
State to audit proposed bond issuance to finance city's Heartland Park purchase

Registered member said:
The state of Kansas will conduct an audit to look into whether the issuance of STAR bonds to finance the city of Topeka’s purchase of Heartland Park Topeka meets state requirements, legislative post auditor Scott Frank said Friday.

A state Commerce Department document indicated the audit is expected to last about three months, meaning it would remain in progress past the Feb. 28 deadline after which the city’s purchase agreement allows creditor CoreFirst Bank & Trust to foreclose on Heartland Park owner and operator Jayhawk Racing LLC if the bonds haven’t been issued.

The decision on whether to issue the bonds would be made by the state’s Secretary of Commerce, Pat George. Frank said the Commerce Decretary’s options include issuing the bonds before the audit is complete. The Topeka Capital-Journal received no response to requests it made Friday asking the Commerce Department if it would wait until the audit is complete before deciding whether to issue the bonds, and seeking the city of Topeka’s perspectives on the matter.

Frank said the Kansas Legislative Post-Audit Committee in a voice vote Thursday approved a request to authorize the audit made by Sen. Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka and a member of the committee.

The vote was among multiple actions taken by the bipartisan post-audit committee, which consists of six Republicans and four Democrats, Frank said. He said no one dissented during the vote, which directed the Legislative Division of Post-Audit – which the committee oversees -- to look into whether the issuance of the bonds is legal and whether it economically benefits the state.

Hensley provided committee members a letter asking for the audit, which was signed by 18 constituents who live in his district.

The letter contended the amount of sales tax the Department of Commerce is authorizing the city to dedicate toward the bonds appears to be inconsistent with the original intent of the law involved.

It also said the city appears to be violating state law by financing more than 50 percent of the project cost with STAR bond proceeds, and that the primary intent of the transaction appears to be to shift the burden of the costs of the city’s 2005 STAR bond issuance to the taxpayers of the state of Kansas.

A Commerce Department “scope statement” received Friday by The Capital-Journal indicated the audit was anticipated to last three months and require three LPA staff members. The division would make a recommendation on whether to proceed with the issuance of the bonds, which Frank said the Commerce Department wouldn’t be required to follow.

“Legislators have expressed concern that the Department of Commerce is not providing sufficient oversight of STAR bond projects to ensure that project revenues will be sufficient to cover costs and that other provisions of the law have been met,” the statement said. “Moreover, legislators have expressed concern that the recent proposal by the City of Topeka to purchase the Heartland Park Racetrack shifts the burden of bond repayment from the local government to the state and fails to meet other provisions of state law.”

Frank said the audit would not look at any matters regarding Topekan Chris Imming’s petition drive seeking to bring about a public vote on the purchase.

Imming initiated the drive after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to authorize the purchase of the financially troubled Heartland Park racing facility and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond debt. The plan involves the state’s allowing for $16 million in state sales tax revenue from the expanded district to be used to help pay off the STAR bonds, provided the Secretary of Commerce approves the plan.

Imming’s petition gained more than the required number of signatures needed to put the matter on the ballot for a citywide election, but the city filed a lawsuit challenging the petition’s legality, and Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks last month ruled it invalid. An attorney representing Imming subsequently appealed. The Kansas Court of Appeals is in the process of deciding whether to approve Imming’s request for a stay in the case.

Meanwhile, the city’s governing body voted this month to authorize the city staff to proceed with steps needed to market and sell reissued STAR bonds to help bring about the purchase, while making plans to do that next month.
 
Nick has NHRA responded to what's going on. I would think they need a guarantee the track will be open next year and beyond pretty soon, I would say before this audit even takes place. It sure doesn't look good.
 
The only thing I have heard from the NHRA is the agreement that was published a few weeks ago, which guarantees KS Nationals for the next 3 years, if the STAR bond deal goes through.
 
There is a theory floating around that the bank that would foreclose on Heartland Park in February (CoreFirst), would still hold the KS Nationals event to try and make a few dollars.
 
Petition drive organizer says he shouldn't be forced to purchase bonds

Registered member said:
Petition drive organizer Chris Imming shouldn’t be forced to buy millions of dollars worth of bonds to cover potential damages resulting from a stay he is seeking in his lawsuit against the city of Topeka, an attorney representing Imming indicated Monday.

R.E. “Tuck” Duncan filed a 36-page document with the Kansas Court of Appeals saying Topeka’s city government contends it will incur “real and certain” damages as a result of the proposed stay, yet it cites no specifics.

Duncan added that assessing a bond against a petition carrier would have a chilling effect on future efforts of citizens who want to challenge legislative decisions of municipal bodies.

Monday’s document also made other arguments as to why the bond purchase shouldn’t be required. Duncan filed it after attorneys representing the city and Heartland Park owner-operator Jayhawk Racing LLC asked the court last week to reject Imming’s request for a stay linked to his appeal.

They also asked that, should the stay be granted, Imming be required to buy bonds to cover potential damages resulting from it.

Jayhawk Racing said the bonds’ amount should be $5.29 million. The city indicated that, according to a formula under state law, the bonds should total $45.6 million.

Imming’s appeal is linked to a petition drive initiated after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to authorize the purchase of Heartland Park and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding STAR bond debt.

Imming responded by initiating a petition drive that gained more than the required number of signatures needed to put the matter on the ballot for a citywide election, but the city filed a lawsuit challenging the petition’s legality.

Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks on Nov. 12 ruled the petition invalid. Duncan filed an appeal Dec. 2 on Imming’s behalf in the Kansas Court of Appeals. He then filed a motion Dec. 9 asking that court to issue a stay prohibiting the city government from moving forward with its proposed purchase of Heartland Park while Imming’s appeal remained in progress.
 
Topeka commits to profit guarantee, advertising dollars in NHRA contract

Registered member said:
The city of Topeka since July has had a binding agreement with the National Hot Rod Association that requires the city offset profit shortfalls and pay advertising fees for the annual event at Heartland Park.

In part, the contract calls on the city to pay half of the shortfall if the event doesn’t make $1,831,000 and finance at least $340,000 a year for advertising.

That runs contrary to statements from city leaders, including city manager Jim Colson, who repeatedly have told the public the city won’t invest more money into the troubled racetrack after $5 million in Sales Tax Revenue bonds are issued and a new owner is selected from among four prospective bidders.

However, city attorney Chad Sublet said, every part of the contract can be renegotiated by the city or by whichever operator it selects. He also said the contract wouldn’t go into effect until the city is granted STAR bonds.

“The city and NHRA aren’t tied into that contract until and unless the STAR bond deal goes through,” Sublet said.

The contract states it is contingent upon the city acquiring full ownership of the track, a scenario that relies on the issuance of new STAR bonds, a move currently in jeopardy from an ongoing appeal and a Legislative Post Audit investigation.

Staff was expected to present to the Topeka City Council on Jan. 6 its recommendation for a new owner from among the four prospective bidders. However, city leaders weren’t sure a vote would be held that night.

If the city doesn’t have the rights to the track by Jan. 15, 2015, NHRA has the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate the agreement, according to the contract.

This was the 26th year the NHRA Kansas Nationals took place at Heartland Park, which typically happens in the last weekend in May.

The NHRA agreement briefly was posted on the city’s website as part of the request for proposal package. It was removed, however, because it contains a confidentiality clause and “should not have been posted online,” communications and marketing director Suzie Gilbert explained.

Topekan Leo Hafner at the Dec. 16 council meeting was critical of the city’s decision to pull the contract from public view, noting it came down after he inquired into it.

“To me, that smells a little bit,” he said, describing some of the provisions as shocking. “I mean, it sounds like we’re trying to hide something here. I just wanted everyone to be aware of that and I wanted it to be on the record, because I don’t think that has a sense of fair play. And I think the citizenry are starting to get a little suspicious of this government and what’s going on here.”

As a result of the confidentiality clauses, Sublet said, the city doesn’t definitively know whether the contract is similar to others across the country.

“We requested that, but because of that clause, it couldn’t be provided,” he said.

However, Sublet said, it was his understanding that Topeka’s contract is similar to others.

An NHRA spokesman declined to comment on the contract, noting a confidentiality clause included in it and its other contracts.

The 70-page contract holds the city and whichever operator it selects — with NHRA approval — “jointly and severally liable” on a number of provisions, including the profit guarantee.

Put another way: If the operator can’t make up the diffence, the city will have to come up with the cash.

However, Sublet said, the agreement only obligates the city/operator to half of the difference. If the weekend generated $1.5 million, for example, the city/operator and NHRA would split the $300,000 shortfall.

The contract doesn’t expressly say that, only that the city/operator will pay NHRA “one hundred percent of the difference between $1,831,000 and the actual total of shared” admissions, parking and title rights revenues.

The $1.8 million figure, Sublet said, is based on what the event historically has generated in Topeka.

He said his understanding is that the revenue guarantee is standard with NHRA contracts and the amount varies by racetrack.

Although the NHRA has exclusive responsibility for advertising and promotions, the funding for that campaign will come from the city/operator. The contract holds that amount to $340,000 each year, naming Visit Topeka Inc. and transient guest tax dollars as potential sources.

That paragraph needs to be read closely, Sublet said, because it only commits the city to “adequately support advertising and marketing.”

The contract language said the city/operator shall secure “sufficient” funds to promote the event, “which are expected to be in the amount of approximately $340,000.”

“Visit Topeka will make determinations about allocations,” Sublet said.

Visit Topeka historically has provided Heartland Park funding from transient guest tax dollars.

The phrase “sole and absolute discretion” — or something like it — comes up several times in the agreement, giving the NHRA great leeway in many decisions, all “in deference to NHRA’s expertise.”

For example, the NHRA has to approve whichever operator the city wants to select to operate the track, “provided the NHRA will disapprove an operator in good faith,” according to the contract.

The NHRA also has “sole discretion” to determine whether updates are needed at the track. If they are, the city/operator has to make the changes within the next 60 days, if that is reasonable.

Other provisions of the contract include that:

■ Heartland Park must retain, at minimum, all of the structure, fixtures, facilities and other items as they were for the 2014 event.

■ If the city/operator takes any action that prevents NHRA from conducting its annual event, the city/operator would have to pay for the damages to NHRA.

“(I)t would be reasonable to award, and NHRA shall be entitled to, the sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000),” the contract reads.

■ Commit Heartland Park to give the NHRA “exclusive use and control” of the racetrack for 20 days surrounding the event.

■ NHRA will have rights to audit all books and records related to its event.

■ All proceeds owed from the event determined by the preliminary settlement have to be made within 48 hours. If not, the party owing funds will be liable for a $200 daily administrative fee.

■ Obligate the city/operator to 26 responsibilities and expenses, including ticket personnel, Internet services and corporate hospitality expenses. The NHRA, meanwhile, is responsible for 14 items, including key personnel for race operations, three ambulances and securing
credentials.
 
Arguments in Heartland Park petition appeal set for Jan. 7

Registered member said:
A panel of Kansas Court of Appeals judges next week will hear oral arguments in the Heartland Park Topeka petition case regarding a motion for a stay.

Presiding Judge Stephen D. Hill on Monday announced the hearing, which was scheduled for 10 a.m. Jan. 7 at the Kansas Judicial Center, 300 S.W. 10th. The arguments will be heard by judges Hill, Karen Arnold-Burger and Kim Schroeder.

Petition organizer Chris Imming and his attorney, R.E. “Tuck” Duncan, on Dec. 9 filed a motion asking that court to issue a stay prohibiting the city government from moving forward with its proposed purchase of Heartland Park while Imming’s appeal remained in progress.

The city of Topeka and Jayhawk Racing subsequently asked the Kansas Court of Appeals to reject the stay, but if it is approved, the bodies asked the judges to require that Imming secure enough money in bonds to cover potential damages. Damages to Jayhawk Racing — should the stay result in the city’s Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond deal falling through — are estimated at $5.29 million, while damages to the city are estimated at $45.6 million.

Duncan on Dec. 22 responded to those claims, saying Imming shouldn’t be forced to pay millions because Topeka provided no specifics for its “real and certain” damages from the stay. He added that assessing such a high bond would have a chilling effect on future citizen petition efforts.

Imming’s appeal is linked to a petition drive initiated after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to authorize the purchase of Heartland Park and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding STAR bond debt.

Imming responded by initiating a petition drive that gained more than the required number of signatures needed to put the matter on the ballot for a citywide election, but the city filed a lawsuit challenging the petition’s legality.

Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks on Nov. 12 ruled the petition invalid.
 
City manager acknowledges Heartland Park deal might not go through

Registered member said:
Topeka city manager Jim Colson on Tuesday evening made what appeared to be his first public acknowledgement that the city’s proposed purchase of Heartland Park Topeka might not go through.

Colson told reporters after that evening’s council meeting: “We’re going to continue to talk to the potential operators of the facility and see if we can get a deal through, but we’re realistic. It may be difficult to bring this thing home.”

Colson gave the council an update at Tuesday’s 26-minute meeting about the city’s efforts to find someone who will buy the financially struggling facility, or lease it and operate it for the city.

Colson then told reporters he was continuing to try to make the arrangement work but the matter had become something of a distraction, in light of everything else the city has before it.

“We have a $255 million budget and what we’re trying to do is solve a million dollar problem here,” Colson said. “We can’t get distracted from everything that’s going on in the city. So we think it’s good but we are committed to doing the right thing, and the right thing is what’s legal and what’s in the best interest of the city of Topeka.”

The city announced last month it had received proposals from four entities that met its required qualifications: MK Investments, Larry Sinks, Monopoly Acquisitions LLC and International Motorsports Entertainment and Development Corp.

Colson told the council Tuesday the city was continuing to have discussions with two of those, which he didn’t identify.

He said one had expressed concern over the status of legal challenges and procedural concerns involved, and continued to be interested but was currently “holding back.”

Colson said the other also feels concerned but is “pushing on” with its proposal.

He said he anticipated the city would get a letter of intent from that entity outlining what it intends to do.

Colson had hoped last month to see the city staff seek bids Tuesday to purchase the project’s STAR Bonds, then come back before the governing body with pricing to formally adopt those bids, but the city put those moves on hold to deal with other concerns.

Colson told council members the city’s legal staff was preparing to take part in a court hearing Wednesday morning linked to the purchase, while city officials planned to hold their initial meeting Friday morning with a legislative post-audit committee that’s looking at it.

The Kansas Court of Appeals plans at 10 a.m. Wednesday to hear oral arguments from both sides on Topekan Chris Imming’s motion asking the court to issue a stay prohibiting Topeka’s city government from moving forward with the purchase while Imming’s appeal of a recent court decision in the city’s favor remains in progress.

Imming is asking the court to overturn Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks’ ruling invalidating a petition drive Imming coordinated seeking to put the purchase to a citywide vote.

Meanwhile, the Kansas Legislative Post-Audit Committee voted last month to look into whether the re-issuance of Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bonds to finance the city’s purchase of Heartland Park Topeka meets state requirements,

Colson told council members Tuesday the city was continuing to try to close the purchase because — while the proposed deal is not perfect — it would benefit the city financially.

“We look forward to resolving everything one way or the other,” he said.
 
Nick great job keeping us informed, if there is anything you need in helping with this just PM me and I will get back to you. Thanks again.
 
Appeals court judges hear arguments on request for stay in Heartland Park case

Registered member said:
Heartland Park will go dark” and its owner and operator, Jayhawk Racing LLC, likely will go out of business if the Kansas Court of Appeals approves a request by petition drive organizer Chris Imming, attorney Kevin Fowler told that court Wednesday morning.

Fowler, representing Jayhawk Racing, indicated the stay would prevent the city from carrying out its plan to purchase Heartland Park before the Feb. 28 deadline specified in the purchase agreement, which allows creditor CoreFirst Bank & Trust to foreclose on Jayhawk Racing if sales tax revenue (STAR) bonds involved haven’t been issued by then.

Attorney R.E. “Tuck” Duncan Jr., representing Imming, responded that Jayhawk Racing had already effectively failed.

“They say they’re going to lose their business,” he said. “They lost it long before this case was ever filed.”

Fowler, Duncan and attorney Catherine Logan — representing the city of Topeka — presented oral arguments during a 70-minute hearing before Kansas Court of Appeals Judges Steve Hill, Karen Arnold-Berger and Kim Schroeder.

Hill is serving as chief judge for the panel, which he said will decide Imming’s appeal “from start to finish.”

The judges heard arguments for and against Imming’s motion asking them to issue a stay prohibiting Topeka’s city government from moving forward with the city’s proposed issuance of STAR bonds and purchase of Heartland Park while Imming’s appeal of a recent court decision in the city’s favor remains in progress.

Imming’s appeal asks the court to overturn Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks’ ruling invalidating a petition drive Imming coordinated seeking to put the purchase to a citywide vote.

Hill said the court would issue a written decision on the stay request relatively soon, though he didn’t specify when.

Hill said he appreciated the vigor and confidence attorneys showed in making their arguments Wednesday.

He made reference to the presence of reporters from four media outlets in the courtroom, and said the case appeared to have drawn a lot of interest.

Hill added, “We understand that this is an important question and there is a lot riding on it.”

Duncan asked the judges to issue any order they deem appropriate to preserve the “status quo” until the case is resolved,

He said a public vote on whether to allow the purchase would no longer be applicable if the city had already carried it out, adding that the court in such a situation would be looking at how to “put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

In response to Fowler’s assertion that CoreFirst would foreclose on Jayhawk Racing if the stay was granted, Duncan said Jayhawk Racing’s options include asking CoreFirst for a 90-day extension past the Feb. 28 deadline.

Fowler and Logan responded that CoreFirst had no obligation to grant such an extension.

Duncan acknowledged that for the court to issue the stay he needed to make a “substantial” case that his client, Imming, would be able to prevail on the merits of the appeal.

Fowler said that if the court granted Imming’s requested stay it would send a message to CoreFirst that here was a “substantial likelihood” that Imming would win the case on its merits.

Jayhawk Racing would receive $2.2 million and then cease to operate if the purchase goes through, Fowler said.

Logan told the judges that if the city didn’t carry out the purchase, it would:

■ Remain “on the hook” to pay $10.2 million worth of outstanding STAR bond debt, which would be covered by future STAR bond revenues under the city’s proposed plan.

■ See the Heartland Park property, which has an estimated value of $15.3 million, foreclosed upon by CoreFirst.

Duncan addressed requests by the city and Jayhawk Racing that the court — should it approve the stay — require Imming to secure enough money in bonds to cover potential damages.

Damages to Jayhawk Racing — should the stay result in the STAR bond deal falling through — were estimated at $5.29 million, while damages to the city were estimated at $45.6 million.

Duncan said the bonds shouldn’t be required because the amounts put forth by the city and Jayhawk Racing were “speculative.”

The judges heard testimony Wednesday from Duncan, then Logan, then Fowler before Duncan received time for rebuttal at the end.

As someone who has been married 40 years, Duncan joked, it was “nice to get the last word.”

Hill replied that the judges would actually probably get the last word.
 
Appeals Court issues temporary stay order in Heartland Park case

Registered member said:
The Kansas Court of Appeals Thursday temporarily granted Topekan Chris Imming’s motion seeking a stay in the Heartland Park case while not making the stay last as long as Imming had requested.

Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Hill issued a one-paragraph order Thursday morning granting the stay, which prohibits Topeka’s city government from moving forward with its proposed issuance of STAR bonds and purchase of Heartland Park until 10 days after the point when Imming, the city of Topeka and Jayhawk Racing LLC have all filed briefs in the case.

Hill wrote that appellant Imming’s brief is due by Monday, Jan. 12, while briefs from the city and Jayhawk Racing -- the appellees -- are due 30 days after the filling of Imming’s brief.

“In order to allow for meaningful appellate review and due to the importance of preserving the democratic process, the district court’s decision, in all respects, is hereby stayed until 10 days after the filing of both Appellees’ briefs,” Hill wrote.

Hill issued the order on behalf of himself and fellow Court of Appeals Judges Karen Arnold-Berger and Kim Schroeder.

The order stopped short of granting Imming’s motion asking the judges to issue a stay in the case that would remain in place so long as Imming’s appeal of a recent court decision in the city’s favor remains in progress.

Imming’s appeal asks the court to overturn Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks’ ruling invalidating a petition drive Imming coordinated seeking to put the purchase to a citywide vote.

Hill is serving as chief judge for the panel, which he said will decide Imming’s appeal “from start to finish.”

Kevin Fowler, an attorney representing Jayhawk Racing told judges during a hearing Wednesday that Heartland Park would “go dark” and Jayhawk Racing would likely go out of business if the court issued the stay in the form Imming requested.

Fowler indicated a stay of the duration Imming requested would prevent the city from carrying out its plan to purchase Heartland Park before the Feb. 28 deadline specified in the purchase agreement, which allows creditor CoreFirst Bank & Trust to foreclose on Jayhawk Racing if sales tax revenue (STAR) bonds involved haven’t been issued

Fowler hadn’t returned a telephone message left by The Capital-Journal at his law office Thursday asking what the ramifications of the stay order Hill issued that morning would be for Jayhawk Racing and Heartland Park.
 
Topeka Capital-Journal Editorial: City doing too much work in the dark

Registered member said:
The city’s handling of its efforts to acquire Heartland Park Topeka and keep the National Hot Rod Association coming to town every spring certainly hasn’t been something to inspire public confidence in the cause.

At the beginning of their quest, city officials began working on a plan to issue another round of STAR (sales tax revenue) bonds to finance acquisition of the troubled racetrack long before they let the public know something of the sort was in the works. Now, most Topekans have recently learned about a contract between the city and NHRA that outlines the city’s liabilities in the event future drag races don’t provide the profit margin NHRA thinks it needs.

The details of that contract are very interesting indeed, but most interesting is the fact the pact has been in effect since July, and Topekans only now know the contract exists and what obligations they might incur under the deal.

Granted, the agreement was posted briefly on the city’s website when it was requesting proposals from people or firms interested in purchasing the track or contracting to operate it once the city had acquired it through the issue of new STAR bonds. Most Topekans, however, never saw the contract or learned any specifics of the deal.

City officials say the agreement was removed from the website because it contained a confidentiality clause and shouldn’t have been posted in the first place.

Since when are government contracts confidential?

If the NHRA has a problem with the details of the contract becoming public knowledge, too bad. If city officials have a problem with the details becoming public knowledge, too sad. They should know better.

The NHRA is no different that any other organization or individual with which the city does business. Contracts entered into on behalf of the public are public information. If the NHRA sought confidentially in the matter, city officials should have simply said they couldn’t do that.

City attorney Chad Sublet has said the contract can be renegotiated by the city or the operator it selects for the racetrack, and that the city and NHRA aren’t tied to the contract unless the STAR bond deal goes through.

Perhaps, but the contract certainly was drafted with the expectation the STAR bonds would be issued and the city would purchase Heartland Park Topeka. City officials have said they would sell the track to a qualified purchaser who could keep NHRA coming to Topeka or contract with an operator who could do the same. City officials have said repeatedly the city wouldn’t operate the track or put money into its operation after the STAR bonds were issued.

So why all the secrecy?

Our elected and appointed city officials can’t do their work in the dark and then expect the public to trust them when the lights go on.

Members of The Capital-Journal Editorial Advisory Board are Gregg Ireland, Mike Hall, Fred Johnson, Ray Beers Jr., Garry Cushinberry, John Stauffer, Frank Ybarra and Sally Zellers.
 
NHRA seems to be right in the middle of this mess.

I have been going there since the place opened up, but the NHRA would be wise to walk away from this right now and find another place to hold the race. There is just things that aren't right about this whole thing. The bank needs to step in and foreclose and then everyone hope like hell that someone competent steps up and returns the place to its former glory.

Someone is getting a fat wallet out of the place and residents are rightly pissed. They are funding something that is hemorrhaging cash. And the city council appears to be complicate in the mess, or at the very least, inept. I mean, how the hell do you go to bat for some 5 million dollars in star bonds and not know that the entity you want to give them to is $46,000 in arrears over a water bill? More than likely owed to the city. That is either not doing due diligence, or ignoring something so glaring that it would impede future funding.

I also call bullshit on the study that the owner commissioned that said the track had an economic impact of $160 million a year. If it had that much of an impact, then the original bonds would have been paid off, and the track would be in far better financial shape that it is today. In the 8 years since the first 10 million+ in bonds were issued, the balance owed is still greater than was originally underwritten. Now, you can blame that on whatever you want, but I call it horrible management and/or some serious misappropriation of those funds.

It is a damn shame too. Because it used to be a well run, first class facility. It has been ignored and is now a liability to the residents. I don't want to see Division 5 lose a track, but it appears that Bandimer, Earlville and other tracks in the division don't seem to be having these problems. Add to that, KCIR is now gone, so those racers most likely went to HPR, so weekly car counts should be up.
 
Topeka Capital-Journal now digging up Topeka City Manager Jim Colson's past failures

NHL hockey in Arizona an albatross for Glendale taxpayers


Registered member said:
Public hockey project Financial collapse

In the throes of a national recession in 2009, the Coyotes’ owner inflated chaos by placing the team in bankruptcy. In 2011 and again in 2012, taxpayers of Glendale paid the $25 million annually to bankroll a team managed by a league convinced it needed to make a mark on 4 million potential fans.

Glendale’s reserve fund of $72 million in 2006 slipped to $11 million by 2012.

Massive subsidies triggered downgrades in the city’s bond rating — the most recent in March by Standard and Poor’s, which pointed to weak city management practices and budget imbalances. Glendale’s city council adopted a 2-percent increase in the property tax rate in June. Critics attempted, but failed, to put spending on hockey to a citywide vote, while the Goldwater Institute challenged whether the city’s strategy to pay “arena management fees” to a prospective owner violated the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition on public subsidies, categorized as gifts, to private businesses.

Confronted with a projected $30 million budget shortfall resulting from the hockey franchise disaster, the council cut 100 staff positions and later made permanent the “temporary” sales tax increase of 0.7 percent adopted to keep the city afloat financially. Fees for after-school programs and swimming lessons went up. Courthouse and library building projects were postponed. Routine road maintenance was delayed.

“There have been a lot of things we have pushed off and kicked the can down the road because we haven’t had the monies to take care of the things we should,” said Weiers, who aside from being the Glendale mayor also is a former Arizona state legislator.

In June, the mayor asked the state’s attorney general to investigate a secret, potentially illegal meeting between a councilman and the Coyotes’ attorney that provided the hockey team’s management with information about the city’s position in contract negotiations. The city’s attorney later bolted to work for the Coyotes, sparking ethical scrutiny.



Colson a player

The spiral of this Coyotes’ franchise serves as a tutorial for Topeka as city officials maneuver toward a complicated financial arrangement designed to keep Heartland Park from plummeting to foreclosure and compounding bond-debt challenges at City Hall.

Topeka city manager Jim Colson, a former Glendale city official, is intimately familiar with the Coyotes’ saga. He touted moving the team from Phoenix to Glendale among his most significant career achievements. He was at the table when the city agreed to finance Gila River Arena for the hockey team. He was deputy city manager of Glendale from 2009 to 2012 as the financial crisis imploded.

Colson defended one proposal to sell the NHL team, arguing the city had no option since it had to fulfill obligations to pay arena bond debt. The club’s sale, he said, “puts us in the best possible situation moving forward.” One analysis of that deal indicated the city would lose $9 million annually, even if the Coyotes went to the Stanley Cup Finals every year and the arena booked 30 sold-out concerts each year for two decades.

Colson spoke with the same conviction in Topeka about the proposed state taxpayer bailout of the city of Topeka, which holds about $8 million in bond debts on Heartland Park. The plan also would come to the aid of Topeka racetrack owner Ray Irwin and a long-struggling Topeka lending institution, CoreFirst Bank and Trust.

“This is the most important thing,” Colson said. “We want to do what’s best for the city of Topeka. We certainly wouldn’t go forward with something that we felt wasn’t defensible.”

Colson was hired to lead Topeka’s city government in August 2012, at the height of Glendale’s turmoil with the Coyotes. He bailed out of Glendale’s government apparatus along with the mayor and city manager.

Despair about the fractured financial promise of Heartland Park — revenue to pay the current public bond debt for the track never met glowing projections, leaving the city to subsidize payments for a decade — was a festering reality when Colson arrived in Kansas.

He has helped cobble together and now spearheads advocacy for issuance of $5 million in new bonds for Heartland Park. The arrangement will primarily draw upon state sales tax revenue to pay off old and new bonds while bailing out Irwin and CoreFirst.




Hockey

pinwheel

In 2008, stories began circulating that the Coyotes franchise was uncontrollably hemorrhaging financially. The NHL secretly obtained operational control of the team from owner Jerry Moyes and began paying the club’s bills. Hours before the NHL was to present Moyes with an offer in 2009 to unload the Coyotes to Chicago Bulls and White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, Moyes thrust the team in bankruptcy with the intent of selling to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie, which would move the team to Hamilton, Ontario.

Legal wrangling in Arizona led to identification of potential buyers: Reinsdorf, a consortium known as Ice Edge Holdings and Balsillie. A bankruptcy court cut out Balsillie. The NHL bought the club for $140 million and aggressively fought relocation of the franchise out of the Phoenix area.

The NHL negotiated a lease with the city of Glendale, owners of Gila River Arena. Glendale officials approved Reinsdorf’s plan to buy the club, but that deal fell apart in 2010, and the city turned to Ice Edge. The Ice Edge option also crumbled in 2010.

Bids by Ice Edge and Reinsdorf had been controversial because they were conditional on Glendale taxpayers covering any losses the Coyotes might incur — and few thought it could operate close to the black.

The city of Glendale agreed to pay $25 million to cover revenue shortages in the 2010-11 season to prevent the NHL from packing up and leaving the desert. Chicago businessman Matt Hulsizer struck a deal with Glendale and the NHL to buy the Coyotes. That unraveled in 2011 when the Goldwater Institute threatened legal action over legality of payments Glendale would make to Hulsizer in advance of his purchase of the club.



Taxpayers the real losers

Kurt Altman, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, said the organization’s four-year legal fight with Glendale officials over the NHL franchise boiled down to access to records that could shed light on whether City Hall was breaking a ban on gifting — cash, in this case — to hockey franchise suitors.

“Glendale basically stiff-armed us for a long time,” Altman said. “The taxpayers of Glendale really are the losers in this.”

In desperation, Glendale city officials committed a second $25 million payment to cover operations in the 2011-12 season. And the city continued to pay the $12.6 million in debt service on arena construction bonds. This financial picture was far different from what was pitched to citizens in 2003.

“The council was told it wouldn’t cost the city anything. It would all be paid with sales tax,” said Ian Hugh, a member of Glendale’s city council. “How can you be that far off?”

An agreement to sell the franchise to former San Jose Sharks owner Greg Jamison fell through in 2013. That package would have guaranteed the team stay in the Phoenix area for 20 years, in exchange for taxpayer subsidies — framed as an annual arena-management fee of $14.5 million.

Skeptics calculated that by expiration of the Jamison deal in 2033, Glendale’s 226,000 residents would have paid $1,200 each, or $270 million in total, to maintain an NHL presence in the city.

Retired economics professor Joe Cobb, a Glendale resident who spent his youth in Wichita, worked to gain signatures on petitions for a referendum on the city’s plan to pay dearly to support Jamison's operation. Given two weeks to gather 2,000 signatures, he fell short. But he views public construction of Gila River Arena as a debacle.

“If a city owns the arena, they have the city by the testicles,” Cobb said. “I cannot think of any reason why taxpayers should bail out a private business — even if it claims to be a sporting activity.”
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top