[Vision2020] an indepth look a the Hawkins deal

[Wayne Price]

While I'm not personally in favor of the Moscow businesses having more  
competition just across the state line, I  have to ask what the county  
prosecutor's role is in this.
His role is to "advise". Now that he has given his advice, wether the  
Commission takes that advice or leaves it on the table, as the  
commissioners have decided, he has served his function and needs to   
sit down and shut up. If he wants to play county commissioner, he  
needs to run for THAT office.

Wayne


On Jan 10, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Bill London wrote:

> Thanks again to David Johnson of the Lewiston Tribune for an  
> insightful article on an important regional topic.
> DJ’s piece on the Hawkins deal (below) explains both the hubris of  
> the commissioners and their rejection of the legal concerns.
> The commissioners have raised economic development to a religious  
> fervor, and no reality will be allowed in the way.
> BL
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Whitman County attorney is wary of Hawkins deal
>
> By David Johnson of the Tribune | Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012  
> 12:00 am
>
> COLFAX - A cautious Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy said  
> Monday barring a legal challenge, the recent decision for the county  
> to spend another $5.9 million on shopping center infrastructure is a  
> "done deal."
>
> This despite Tracy outlining prior to a vote 14 major problems with  
> the amended contract.
>
> County Commissioners Greg Partch and Patrick O'Neill last week voted  
> to fund what amounts to $15 million to further entice Hawkins  
> Companies to build the mall adjacent to the state line.
>
> Commissioner Michael Largent, citing a need for more legal review,  
> asked unsuccessfully to have the measure tabled and then voted  
> against passage.
>
> "They've signed the contract and bound Whitman County," Tracy said.
>
> In a Dec. 28, 2011, memo sent to county elected officials and  
> judges, Tracy asserted the proposed amendment to the initial  
> contract with Hawkins was illegal. He also called it a risk  
> "equivalent of taking the kids' college fund to Vegas."
>
> Tracy wrote it is "unlikely" the county could make payments on the  
> kind of loan necessary to pay for the venture.
>
> Hawkins wants the county to pay the lion's share of costs for  
> infrastructure, such as streets, water and sewer services. The  
> county would own the improvements while Hawkins would be able to  
> offer a better deal to potential mall occupants, like Lowe's home  
> improvement, which has been named as one of the possible anchor  
> businesses.
>
> Jeff DeVoe, spokesman for Hawkins, last month requested the  
> additional $5.9 million in infrastructure during an open commission  
> meeting. But after that meeting, the amended contract was drafted  
> and eventually passed with no public hearing and little or no public  
> input.
>
> Partch, the commission chairman, would not allow any oral input,  
> even from Tracy, at last week's meeting.
>
> This despite much public discussion, a public hearing and  
> solicitation of written public comment prior to when the first  
> Hawkins contract, worth $9.1 million for infrastructure, was  
> adopted. Information was also posted on the county's website the  
> first time around.
>
> More than two dozen people attended last week's meeting, but were  
> told by Partch they could not speak. He said the meeting was a  
> "business meeting." Tracy attempted to speak, but was denied the  
> floor.
>
> The commissioners, Tracy confirmed, met individually with Hawkins  
> representatives prior to the vote.
>
> Those meetings, Tracy said, were allowed by law, as long as the  
> commissioners didn't share their discussions with each other, either  
> directly or through a third party. Tracy said the law requires  
> commissioners discuss all business between themselves in open  
> meetings.
>
> Asked if he, as the commission's attorney, would have preferred  
> commissioners to have met with Hawkins representatives in public and  
> hammered out an amendment to the original contract, Tracy said, "I  
> think I'm prohibited from answering that question."
>
> He did, however, offer a timeline for his own involvement with the  
> commissioners.
>
> "They first came to me on Dec. 14th and asked me to look at it (the  
> proposed amendment to the initial contract)," Tracy said. "On Dec.  
> 27th, I gave them a seven-page memo along with approximately 50  
> pages of attachments outlining what I felt were major problems with  
> this deal."
>
> On the following day, Tracy said he gave the commissioners another  
> two-page memo outlining additional problems with the proposal. Tracy  
> declined to disclose specifics in the memos.
>
> "I also specifically requested to review any changes," Tracy said.  
> "They came up with their revised proposal, which partially addressed  
> two of the 14 major problems that I see with the proposal."
>
> Legalities aside, Tracy wrote in his memo he doubts the county will  
> have the financial wherewithal to recoup its costs. "As far as I can  
> tell," he wrote, "from all the information provided, there will  
> probably not be enough tax revenue generated to pay for the bonds  
> the county will have to issue to fund this gamble."
>
> The county, according to Tracy's memo, could be obligated to pay  
> nearly $23 million in principle and interest payments over the next  
> 20 years. The entire deal, however, is moot if Hawkins fails to  
> begin development by 2014, according to the contract.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120110/b3453074/attachment-0001.html>