Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bad Bonds: The failed Panthers-Rock Hill project had major questions from the start


Tbe
 Share

Recommended Posts

WBTV investigation: long story short. Neither Tepper nor the RH politicians knew what they were doing. RH got blinded by the NFL logo and signed their citizens up for a bad deal.

https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/13/bad-bonds-failed-panthers-rock-hill-project-had-major-questions-start/?outputType=amp


 

A WBTV Investigation on the failed Panthers-Rock Hill practice facility and headquarters raises questions about whether the project was doomed from the start. The investigation found the amount of bond money agreed to by Rock Hill was far more public investment than other similar projects and simultaneously sidestepped key oversight steps.

The city’s own complaint shows that Rock Hill city officials signed an agreement with GT Real Estate before some of the most important information about funding and paying back the bonds had been provided by Tepper’s company.

But most importantly, the math on the project made little sense to bond experts, economists, and some state leaders.

The City of Rock Hill was planning on issuing $225 million in bonds to help pay for the project.

In exchange, Tepper’s GT Real Estate was going to spend $500 million developing the property and promised to bring 150 jobs to the area.

Those numbers are wildly different than other similar projects according to an analysis done by WBTV and verified by bond attorneys.

Almost every local bond in South Carolina must get approval from the State Fiscal Accountability Authority to ensure it is fiscally responsible.

MID Bonds don’t have to be reviewed by the SFAA and the bond agreement between GT Real Estate and Rock Hill was never sent to the SFAA, according to an employee of the agency.

According to Rock Hill’s complaint, GT Real Estate expressed a preference for MID Bonds just two months before the final agreement was signed and after financing through FILOT had largely been worked out.

The assessment GT Real Estate would have paid was just $7.5 million.

The entire structure of the agreement left experts questioning, with one bond attorney telling WBTV on the background they had never seen a MID Bond paired with a fee in lieu of taxes structure in their decades of experience.

“I’ve never seen something like that,” Economist Austin Drukker told WBTV.

Drukker studies how sports projects are financed across the country. He told WBTV the unusual part about the bond agreement for the Panthers facility was that most stadium projects are supported by bonds that are backed by the local or state government that is putting together the package.

However, in South Carolina revenue bonds like MID Bonds can not be backstopped by the taxing government entity because state law prohibits it. Instead, they must be backed by the company they are going to support, in this case, David Tepper’s GT Real Estate.

“So basically, I guess they were backed by the full faith and credit of the failed organization,” Drukker said.

Except the complaint filed by Rock Hill shows that time and again GT Real Estate refused to backstop the bonds. Ultimately, GTRE agreed to back up to $7.5 million worth of the $225 million in bonds.

Economists and bond attorneys WBTV spoke with on background questioned whether that math could ever work. The City of Rock Hill claimed it expressed the same concerns to representatives of GT Real Estate in the complaint the city filed in court.

Throughout the process, Rock Hill officials claimed they would not backstop the debt. But a small clause in one of the agreements raises questions about other measures the city was willing to take to get the bonds issued.

In the Finance and Construction Administration Agreement between Rock Hill and GT Real Estate, the city agreed to use reasonable efforts to “obtain Credit Enhancement in connection with the issuance of the bonds.”

But there are few options available to a public entity to “credit enhance” bonds outside of pledging its full faith and credit. One option is bond insurance but insurance on $225 million in bonds that are not backstopped would be difficult, according to industry experts WBTV spoke to.

“I think too many elected officials fell victim to this to this extravaganza,” State Senator Dick Harpootlian told WBTV.

Harpootlian has been against the deal from the very beginning, hiring his own economist to show the numbers didn’t make sense.

“Once you said NFL or once you said football, blinders went on and that happened at a local level and that happened at the state level,” Harpootlian said.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't know the bonds where backed by his company that is declairing bankruptcy. Wow. And they skipped the state oversight process?

That is some shadey stuff. And spending $500 million for 150 new jobs to give a $7.5 million dollar tax assessment on that $500 million dollar site is a cheffs kiss to this entire mess. 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

It should be the other way. Hey sports teams, stop getting in bed with politicians. 

One of them represents themselves, the other represents the people they were elected to represent.

If I'm on any city council I'm laughing them out of the room 100% of the time.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...