Waypointe 104 Million Bonding Issue Has Monday Public Hearing

After months of tweaking, the planning committee of the Common Council is ready to hold a public hearing on the infrastrucutre bonding plan of the Waypoint project.

The Hour reports:

Under the bonding plan, parking revenues and a surtax leveled upon Waypointe tenants within a special services district would repay the bonds over a 25-year period.

The bond resolution is part of a master development agreement spelling out the responsibilities of the city, Seligson Properties and the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency for Waypointe — a nearly $600-million project.

The Common Council’s Planning Committee has been reviewing the draft agreement for months, according to committee Chairwoman Phyllis Y. Bolden.

Language within the agreement states the bonds could be issued only per council approval and then only after at least 75-percent of non-residential space within Waypointe is occupied.

“We still have the safety net. We still cannot and will not put up any bonds unless the project is 75-percent occupied. Seventy-five percent occupancy means revenues,” Bolden said. “That is our assurance that (the bonds) are going to be paid for. That’s the only way, and it’s in the document.”

The meeting will be hled at 7 PM in the Council Chambers. The Hour did a nice job by actually posting the link to the Redevelopment site and a graphic map of the area. The link to the Waypointe project development exhibits  is here.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

  • Finally

    The City has been negotiating and studying the MDA and Bond proposals for over two years. The people most familiar with these documents (including Tom Hamilton) agree that it protects the taxpayers and provides a huge jolt of new tax revenue for Norwalk. Private equity (over $400 million from the developer comes “up-front” before any public money is bonded for this project. Let’s get our local economy going with new jobs and new tax revenues.

  • Against Developer Subsidies

    Sad to read that this Common Council is even contemplating becoming the first in Norwalk history to subsidize a developer to the tune of $IM. If Waypointe doesn’t have the funds to pay for a parking garage, maybe they are not a good risk as a partner.

  • Finally

    This is not a developer subsidy. The City wants to build new public infrastructure (roads / sidewalks, utilities) within the project area. The City has asked the developer to pay all upfront costs and to build this infrastructure for them during construction of the rest of the project. So in reality, the developer is subsidizing the taxpayers of Norwalk by paying for City infrastructure. The City only pays the developer back when the project has 75% of the required retail tenants to support the SSD tax designed to support the $104 million bond. The City also receives ALL parking revenues to pay down the bond debt. This is a very good deal for a city with NO urban core, no new revenues, and no jobs to offer its residents. This is about new tax revenues for the City and new opportunities for Norwalk to break out of a terrible cycle of urban blight.

  • Anonymous

    No restriction on issuing variable rate general obligation bonds? Variable rate? General Obligation? “Stress testing” only an increase of three percent?

  • fred

    $100,000,000 in bonds to be issued at some time in future when we have no idea what the rate would be? If we assume a simple 4% rate (it could be higher/lower) this amounts to $4,000,000 first year interest or a raw cost of roughly $5/sq ft of the retail space JUST FOR INTEREST. If $100,000,000 is amortized on a straight line thats another $5/sq. ft. Is this practical?
    It comes to mind of the bonding for the Maritime Center which was supposed to be paid back based on future projections. Norwalk was paid back NOTHING. $35,000,000 plus interest down the drain. Lets not see this again for $100,000,000.
    Its OK to do a bonding as this project may be good for Norwalk, but with strong guarantees that the interest, amortazation, and real estate taxes be paid to Norwalk out of the cash flow before any other expenses are paid. Lets not be last to get the money, but first.
    Did anyone take a hard look, in light of the current economic conditions, without rose colored eyeglasses, if Norwalk woud be paid back and we don’t repeat the Maritime situation?
    We can’t assume that that the parking fees will help much (our current garages can’t even break even on operating expenses without interest or amortization).
    What if our bonding and garage operating costs are much higher? Will Waypointe pay? Or are we stuck with $100,000,000 in debt payments, ($4,000,000/yr.) plus interest payments $4,000,000 the first yr.) for 25 yrs. , and operating deficits for the garages? I will assume the real estate taxes will pay for the other expenses.