LAA Assessment Summary Capital Projects and Bond Oversight Committee Primary Concerns
TIF: Can the TIF be retroactively changed, or changed at all? Also, question arose as to whether the TIF is properly monitored.
LRC analysts indicated they could not find any language prohibiting a change in the TIF boundaries.
The APA was also unable to locate any statutory or contractual provisions regarding revision of TIF boundaries. As long as all parties are in agreement, we are not aware of any prohibition. As for the question of whether the TIF is properly monitored, that would entail expanded procedures to assess. (See conclusion.)
Bond trustees have changed. There was a question as to whether the bond indenture document (pg 65) may raise questions as to whether or not this is permissible.
Page 81 of the bond indenture document indicates the bond trustee may be removed with the prior written consent of or at the direction of the bond insurer as long as there has not been a default. There also appears to be a requirement to notify bond holders. One concern raised from an external source indicates bond holders must also approve the change in trustee. Based on the information presented in the bond indenture document, it appears bond holders must be notified of the change, but it does not appear the change in this circumstance requires approval of bond holders.
Payments to Kentucky State Fair Board (KSFB): LAA is indicating it will no longer pay Negative Impact Reimbursements to KSFB, per agreement between LAA/KSFB in May 2013. KSFB issued a clarification indicating the settlement with LAA did not include the Negative Impact Reimbursements.
This is a legal matter due to the need for interpretation as to the status of the 2006 HB 380 (budget bill) language, and subsequent LAA and KSFB resolutions regarding the settlement of amounts due. The following questions may be pertinent, but cannot be addressed by the APA:
Is language in 2006-HB380 effective beyond the biennium budget?
Was the reimbur
sement agreed to because of KSFB’s role in operating/managing
the YUM! Center? Under that scenario KSFB could influence which events to host at the YUM! Center versus events to host at Freedom Hall, and therefore the potential negative impact on Freedom Hall may be more clearly identified. Given that AEG now is the operator/manager for the YUM! Center, does that negate the requirement to reimburse KSFB since KSFB/Freedom Hall is now a competitor? If the reimbursement was not based on this assumption, what is the basis for