Archive for the ‘City Council’ Category

The Open Records Fight

Monday, July 25th, 2016

July 25, 2016

There was an interesting editorial in the Commercial Appeal last Sunday concerning Germantown open records and the battle with Jon Thompson and Sarah Wilkerson-Freeman in order to get information on Germantown government salary, insurance and other perks. Congratulations to Thompson and Freeman. I have been fighting this open records battle since 2004.

 

Recently I asked the MLGW for current electronic copies of their annual pension and OPEB reports. I asked by email. I received an electronic copy of an open records request form which I filled out and signed electronically and sent it in. I then received the following message.

 

“Good afternoon, your documents are available for pickup. You can come to the Administration building and the documents will be at the security station.” I then objected to this bureaucratic requirement and sent my objections to Mr. Thompson (MLGW), Mayor Strickland and many others. I eventually got the electronic copies that I asked for and you can now look at the MLGW pension report and the MLGW OPEB report at www.memphisshelbyinform.com.

 

Now the Tennessee Open Records law does not require furnishing electronic copies but governments with a fully open records policy will furnish the information in electronic format because it is cheaper and easier and nearly all data is already in electronic format. If they want to discourage open records requests they will require you to travel down to their office and pick it up at the security desk.

 

I like the MLGW and their utility services. Very professional. President Jerry Collins is a great manager and runs a well trained and effective company. I call on the MLGW to put this information (pensions and OPEB) on their website and keep it updated. I also ask them to publish a return on investment report for their smart meter program to show the public how this program will be paid for and the return on the rate payers’ investment.

Now as to the pension and OPEB reports. Shelby County published their annual pension and OPEB reports online. The City of Memphis and MLGW do not.

 

The MLGW pension fund has a net value of $1.32 billion and $118 million of unfunded liability.

 

The City of Memphis pension fund has a net value of $2 billion and $533 million of unfunded liability. The City of Memphis does not publish their annual pension report online.

 

The Shelby County pension fund has a net value of $1.1 billion and $316 million of unfunded liability.

 

The MLGW OPEB fund has a net value of $333 million and $461 million of unfunded liability.

 

The City of Memphis OPEB fund has a net value of $17 million and $730 million of unfunded liability. The City of Memphis does not publish their annual OPEB report online.

 

The Shelby County OPEB fund has a net value of $197 million and $101 million of unfunded liability.

 

The trouble spots are shown underlined above. Again Shelby County leads in local government in open records policy and fiscal responsibility. I urge you to let local governments know what information you think should be put on their website. What are your thoughts on transparency in government?

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of Transparency On Local Contracts

Tuesday, July 19th, 2016

July 19, 2016

Lack of Transparency On Local Contracts

I have been investigating the barriers companies have to jump over in order to do business with local governments. As an advocate of open records and transparency, I measure the contract information transparency available to the public (taxpayers are the financiers of government purchases). Therefore let us look at what we (the taxpayers) get to know about government purchases and the cost of trying to direct a percentage of government business to minority, women  (MWSBE  minority, women small business enterprises) or locally owned small businesses (LOSB).

I was told recently that the County Commission passed a charter amendment a few years back (city also) that any contract over $100k requires 20% minority participation. Bidders include that in their pricing of the project.

I checked to verify the information and was told that the information was not  exactly correct.  The Locally Owned Small Business (LOSB) ordinance was passed by the County in 2007 and established a target of 20% of all purchases to be awarded to LOSB’s. There is a bidding advantage for LOSB’s of 5% for contracts up to $500,000; 3.5% for contracts up to $750,000; 2.5% for contracts up to $1,000,000 and 2% for contracts over $1,000,000.  For large construction projects the county normally establishes a LOSB percentage requirement.  According to the source, the County has met the LOSB target each year.

The City of Memphis has the following statement.

WHEREAS, the City of Memphis desires to be proactive in ensuring that economic opportunities in the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are equally available to all individuals or businesses, including minority and women-owned businesses, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity.

Certified AABE (African American black enterprise), HBE (Hispanic American business enterprise), ABE Asian American Business Enterprise, NABE (Native American Business Enterprise), or WBE (Women business enterprise) shall mean an AABE, HBE, ABE, NABE or WBE which has been certified by a City approved central certification agency and approved by the Office of Contract Compliance (OCC).

The initial annual MWBE goals shall be:

  • a. Goals for Subcontracting Construction:
    • (16 %) – Minority
    • (3 %) – Women
    • (19 %) – Total goal
  • b. Goals for Prime Construction:
    • (15 %) – Minority
    • (3 %) – Women
    • (18 %) – Total goal
  • c. Goals for Architecture & Engineering Services:
    • (22 %) – Minority
    • (7 %) – Women
    • (29 %) – Total goal
  • d. Goals for Goods and Supplies:
    • (12 %) – Minority
    • (1 %) – Women
    • (13 %) – Total goal
  • e. Goals for Non-Professional Services:
    • (23 %) – Minority
    • (2 %) – Women
    • (25 %) – Total goal
  • f. Goals for Professional Services:
    • (13 %) – Minority
    • (2 %) – Women
    • (15 %) – Total goal

The annual goals provided above shall be reviewed annually by the EBO advisory committee. These overall MWBE participation goals are only intended to be benchmarks evaluating the overall performance of the EBO program on an annual basis. These participation goals are not and, shall not be quotas for purposes of determining or satisfying annual participation goals.

I have tried to find the actual results of this program but I cannot find anything online. It may be there but I cannot find it. I will ask the City of Memphis in an open records request. What I want for the public to know is the results of the City and County small business and minority programs. What are the percentages and what did it cost over and above lowest and best bid for the work? We, the taxpaying public, deserve to know.

Why Is Doing Business With Local Government So Closed and Difficult?

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

Why Is Doing Business With Local Government So Closed and Difficult?

 

July 5, 2016

 

I have wondered about this question for a long time. I have talked to many local business owners and almost all of them say that it is too expensive and difficult to bid on city of county business. I decided to look into how the City and County buy stuff and what we as taxpayers get to know about the successful vendor and how the vendor was selected. What do I, as a taxpayer, want to know?

  • If it is a negotiated contract, I want to know who was contacted, who bid and who was selected and why that firm was selected. If more than one firm was contacted for negotiations, I want to know those firms and their bids.
  • If it is a sealed bid contract, then I want to see all the bids after opening and if the lowest bid was not selected I want to know the reasons.
  • I want to know the qualification process for being accepted as a possible city or county vendor. What do they have to do to get on the qualification list and is the process of qualification really necessary?

I recently met with a ranking County official and we discussed the above points. He wants to open up the sealed bid process so that the public will get to see online the winning bidder and the reasons the winning bidder was chosen over the low bidder if that is the result of the sealed bid process. Currently this is not the case for either the City or the County. We did not discuss the negotiated contract process but I feel that he would be open to more public information about that process. Negotiated contract are necessary in many cases due to time restraints and emergencies and thereby the taxpayers have to have trust in their public officials. By the same process, these public officials have to earn this trust by being open in their dealings and by making open records their gold standard.

The problem with this whole purchasing area is the clamor for equal opportunity and minority access to public contracts. Therefore there is a whole infrastructure set up which is difficult for the average business to navigate. Many just say on the front end that they will not bid public work because it is too difficult and costly to jump over the hurdles. This difficult qualification process necessarily raises the cost of the purchased goods. Here are some examples of what is necessary to even bid on public work.

City of Memphis: click on this: http://www.memphistn.gov/Business.aspx/SupplierRegistration.aspx

Then go here: http://www.memphistn.gov/Government/BusinessDiversityCompliance/ContractCompliance.aspx

And then to here: http://www.memphistn.gov/Business.aspx/Certification.aspx

The Shelby County process is similar but somewhat simpler. However both registration and certification processes are difficult because of the minority and equal opportunity concerns. I want minorities to get a share of the business but I want the taxpayers to be able to see on line that they are doing so and to see what cost we have to pay if the successful bidder is not the one with the lowest price. What premium would you be willing to pay for this objective? Eventually I want open competition between vendors without regard to race, color or any other factor.

Again the County is leading the way in opening their records and they deserve credit for this leadership.

 

A Solution For Germantown’s And Any Government Open Records Problem

Monday, June 20th, 2016

A Solution For Germantown’s  And Any Government Open Records Problem

 

June 20, 2016

 

There was an article in the Commercial Appeal yesterday concerning a large request for emails in Germantown.

 

This is part of the article. Germantown, which has paid more than $62,000 in the first half of the year in attorney fees generated by citizen open records requests, is looking to Nashville for relief.

 

In meetings with Shelby County lawmakers and the state Attorney General, city leaders are researching ways to limit the city’s exposure from the cost of producing large data requests, including potentially charging the costs back to the citizens making the requests.

 

“Asking for four years of someone’s email — all of them — is not normal,” Mayor Mike Palazzolo said. “Asking for a police report dated Jan. 17, 2009, to clear up an insurance manner is routine. But a wide-cast net that takes up our professionals’ time and legal staff to review is something residents need to know is very costly.”

 

The City of Germantown’s proposed budget for next year includes a 64 percent increase (from $350,000 to $575,000) in legal fees. City staff suggested an $80,000 increase, but aldermen upped it to $225,000 — for the $575,000 total — based on the size of the legal bills the city is receiving to blackout sensitive data in City Administrator Patrick Lawton’s emails.

 

In December, resident Sarah Wilkerson-Freeman requested two years of his email, including all attachments.

 

Under law, governments in Tennessee may charge 15 cents a copy plus labor costs for requests that take more than an hour for staff to gather.

 

Wilkerson-Freeman has asked to inspect the data, which is free, and then requests copies made of pages she wants.

 

The problem with this type of open ended request is “REDACTION OF INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.”  This non public information could be such things as social security numbers, home addresses, private medical information and other non public information according to the Tennessee Open Records law.

 

My ANSWER to this redaction problem is a new email protocol that should be adopted by all bodies subject to the Tennessee Open Records Law. This new protocol would apply to all new emails and text messages. Under this protocol the body of the email or text message would be public information. If needed there would be two types of attachments to the basic email text. #1 attachment would be any data that is open to the public. #2 attachment would be any information that is specifically mentioned in the Tennessee open records law as not public information such as addresses, social security information, restricted medical information and exempted legal communications. Then when a request for emails comes in from the public, the requested emails could be easily sent without any #2 attachments containing redactable information. This would do away with the high prices lawyers reading through a bunch of emails. The creators of the emails would have to be trained in the new electronic communications protocol. No personal messages would be allowed on public paid for email services. A public transparency board should be created in each Tennessee County to periodically review emails and text messages to insure compliance with the new protocol.

 

Any email sent from a government entity, or agent thereof, from a private email account that would otherwise be considered a public record should be carbon copied or forwarded to an official email account created for the purpose of the government entity, or agent thereof, to maintain transparency of and provide a record of that public information.

 

Let’s face it. Generally politicians hate open records and transparency and they will use the expense gambit to restrict public access to their records. I would appreciate your thoughts on my proposal for a new public records creation protocol. It seems to me a low cost answer to the “I have to hire a lawyer to redact those email requests” from local politicians. Transparency and open records comes from the top. Lack of transparency comes from the same place.

How We Could Have Saved $1 Million Dollars

Monday, May 9th, 2016

May 9, 2016

 

How We Could Have Saved $1 Million Dollars

 

I have been following the stories about the Memphis Health Education and Housing Facility Board. The story began with the low income properties owned and operated by Global Ministries. Residents complained about bedbugs, rodents and improperly maintained appliances.

 

I began investigating all the various boards and commissions operated under the City of Memphis and Shelby County governments. I found that there were two Health Education and Housing Facility Boards (HEHFB), one run by the Memphis and one by Shelby County. As usual, the one run by the County was better, more open to records access and less controversial. The outstanding difference was a provision of the county board statement of policies and procedures that restricted the amount of cost paid to the Board Counsel. On just 5 bonds issued by the Memphis HEHFB this difference amounted to $59,000. The Memphis HEHFB says that they have issued over 85 bonds. This overpayment to the Board Counsel could be as much as $1 million dollars at the average of the 5 bonds reviewed.

 

At the most recent Memphis board meeting I asked the board some questions and made some public recommendations concerning open records, ethics and conflict of interest. Here are my points.

 

  1. Board agendas should be posted online at their website on the same day they are posted in the Daily News.
  2. All supporting information given to board members along with their agendas should be posted online at the website along with the agenda.
  3. Minutes of the meeting should be posted on the website not later than 1 week after the meeting.
  4. Bond costs and parties to the expenses should be posted on the website when sent to the state as required by law. (Report of debt obligation)
  5. Adopt the same or similar ordinance as the County limiting board counsel fees.
  6. Adopt a strong ethics ordinance regarding conflict of interest and post online.
  7. When a member of the board has a subsequent financial involvement in a board bond or property transaction, that member should make a public acknowledge of that involvement on the board website.

 

I call on the City Council to demand these changes and I ask all citizens and taxpayers to contact the Mayor and their council members to act on this matter. If you have a further suggestion, I ask you to contact Joe Saino at memphisshelbyinform@gmail.com.

Brilliant At The Basics

Monday, April 25th, 2016

April 25, 2016

Brilliant At The Basics

Our new Mayor has come out with his proposed 2017 City budget. I have not had a chance to study it closely yet but I will in the next few weeks. However a recent open records request confirmed what I suspected was happening.

Read the CA article of April 7, 2015. In a CA article (April 7, 2015) our present Mayor Strickland questioned the possibility of Sammons doubling his City pension. In my recent open records request to the City of Memphis I asked for current pension payments to retired City of Memphis employees. I wanted to compare the current pensions to past pensions. Sure enough there was Jack Sammons receiving an annual pension of $68,457.36, up from his previous pension of $34,960.56. Doubled!!!

How has this happened? Apparently there is a provision in the City of Memphis pension ordinance that allows the pension to be recalculated based on the highest 12 month salary overturning any fiscally responsible actuarial calculations. This is a public employee scam that needs to be corrected.  Here is what is done at the County government. Plan A and Plan C both compute pensions based on the employee’s highest 36 consecutive months of earnings.  The new Plan D computes pensions based on the highest 60 consecutive months of earnings. Plan D was effective July 1, 2011 and has proven to be a less costly plan because of the earnings calculation plus the lower years of service multiplier and the retirement age requirement.

Then there is he abuse of the City of Memphis pension board of LINE OF DUTY DISABILITY. This is costing the City up to $14 million per year. The rate of line of duty disability approval at the City is ten time higher per active employee than the MLGW and Shelby County Government. These built in actuarially unsound pension provisions need to be changed as part of the Brilliant Basics.

 

 

Further Info On The Memphis HEHFB Controversy

Wednesday, April 13th, 2016

April 13, 2016

Further Info On The Memphis HEHFB Controversy

I recently reported on the two Health Education & Housing Facility Boards, one from the City of Memphis and one from Shelby County. One is apparently well run and the other has had its’ authority temporarily suspended by the Tennessee Housing and Development Agency because of problem with properties run by Global Ministries.

 

I have attended two meeting of the Memphis board. The first one was not a regular monthly board meeting, but a reading of a proposed bond issue by Charles Carpenter, the board attorney. After the formal reading, I asked a few questions concerning transparency and open records and did not get a lot of information.

 

The second meeting, which was a regular monthly meeting, was attended by Channel 3, the Commercial Appeal, several business interests and myself. The only person, other than the business interests, to ask questions was myself. Before the start of the meeting, I asked the secretary for an agenda and she refused to give me one until the actual meeting started. At the end of the meeting I asked why the agendas and all attachments were not published at least two days before the meetings and I received no answer. I asked about the difference between the County ordinance that limits the amount that the Board Counsel can make. Mr. Carpenter said that he was not aware of the County ordinance. I pointed out that for just five Memphis bonds, the overpayment for the Memphis board Counsel was $59,000. Then I asked about a possible conflict of interest on the bonds for the Uptown Manor Senior Project by a board member and they said that they would have to consult the minutes of that meeting to see if the member recused herself. I asked for the minutes but received no reply. After the regular public meeting, they had an executive meeting and I asked if I could attend. They said that it was a closed meeting and the public was not able to attend.

 

Then several days later I, in fact, received the minutes from the two past board meetings concerning possible conflict of interests. I have attached those minutes and they are interesting.

 

Minutes of Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Lee Patton and  Monice Moore-Hagler recused themselves from the Inducement Resolution for the Uptown Manor Senior motion. Under Discussion Items, John Baker brought to the Board’s attention for further consideration a revised short term bond fee structure. Under New Business, Nancy Willis brought to attention a request for  an annual ethics statement to be signed by members of the board and provided an example copy for the Council’s review.

 

Minutes of Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Under action items, Dan Reid recused himself from consideration of inducement bond resolution for Global Ministries Foundation Bent Tree Apartments. Renasant Bank was to provide a private placement loan for the property.

Then Dan Reid re-entered the meeting and Monice Moore-Hagler and Lee Patton recused themselves before consideration of final bond resolution for Uptown Manor Senior Development LLC. Mr. Carpenter recommended approval.

Finally, Paige Walkup asked for an update regarding GMF Warren-Tulane property. Mr. Carpenter reported on his positive contact with Chris Lamberson and the ongoing response to correct issues and bring it up to standard.

 

This just goes to show that all these boards need to publish their agendas in advance along with all accompanied data and the public should see the same information that the board members get. I will look forward to your comments as you get ready to pay your federal taxes that funds all these projects.

A Story of Our Two Health Education and Housing Facility Boards

Wednesday, March 30th, 2016

March 29, 2016

This is a story of our two Health Education and Housing Facility Boards, one is a Shelby County HEHFB and one is a City of Memphis, HEHFB. I have asked for copies of bond information including Bond Counsel fees and other bond Issuance and Professional fees. As usual, it was fairly easy to get the information from the County Board and impossible to get it from the City board. I finally got some information about 5 bond issues (MemphisHEHFB) from the State of Tennessee Comptroller after no response from the City of Memphis board. I am still waiting for additional information from the State of Tennessee that generally has been very forthcoming. I have previously published the information about the 5 bonds issued by the Memphis board and here is a recap of the information from the Shelby County Board followed by the City of Memphis Board’s  5 bond issues that we have.  Please note that the Shelby County HEHFB has a written policy limiting the Board Counsel fee. There is no such policy for the Memphis HEHFB and therefore they paid $59,000 more on just 5 bond issues on which we have information.

 

Name of Project from the Shelby County HEHFB Bond Amount Bond Counsel Fee Board Counsel Fee Maximum Board Counsel Fee Allowed  per County Policy Total of All Fees for Bond Issue
MUS 2011 $12.255M $30,000 $14,830 $22,255 $195,893
Rhodes 2011 $32M $60,000 $28,000 $42,000 361,768
Southern College of Optometry

2011

$9.8M $25,000 for Bond Counsel, Purchaser and Trustee Counsel $12,500 $19,800 $29,000
Harding 2011 $7.47M $30,410 $14,110 $17,209.80 $115,279

 

Eastwood Apts 2012 $1.1M $36,000 $3,400 $3,300 $114,528.37

 

Methodist 2012 $98.26M $153,000 $40,265 $108,260 $153,000
St. Agnes, 2012 $5.5M $30,733 $13,155 $14,000 $50,388

 

Grace St. Luke’s Episcopal School 2012 $5.875M $30,000 $14,970 $14,750 $70,533
The Village of Germantown 2012 $39.96M $160,000 $48,160 $49,960 $1,418,414
Trezevant Manor 2013 $66.475M $120,000 $49,805 $76,475 $1,578,135.50
St Benedict 2013 $10M $15,000 $7,500 $20,000 $33,000
Countryside North Apartment 2013 $5M $42,000 $18,122.50 $13,000 $191,446.45

 

 

 

Name of Project from the Shelby County HEHFB Bond Amount Bond Counsel Fee Board Counsel Fee Maximum Board Counsel Fee Allowed  per County Policy Total of All Fees for Bond Issue
Southern College of Optometry 2014 $9.8M $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 $43,500
Presbyterian Day School 2014 $10M $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
The Village of Germantown 2014 $21.94M $142,000 $30,140 $71,000 $1,020,587
St. George Independent School 2015 $32.585M $40,000 $20,000 $50,585 $106,936
Rhodes College 2015 $21.35M $55,000 $27,500 $27,500 $294,646

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name of Project from the Memphis HEHFB Bond Amount Bond Counsel Fee Board Counsel Fee Maximum Board Counsel Fee Allowed  per County Policy Total of All Fees for Bond Issue
Uptown Senior Housing Project 2006 $4M $40,000 $25,000 $11,000 $222,550
Arbors of Hickory Ridge $11.45M $26,000 $30,500 $21,450 $235,767
$4.061M $25,255 $23,500 $11,122 $70,700
John Madison Exum Towers $19M $85,000 $40,000 $29,000 $159,600
Uptown Manor Senior Project 2015 $2,825M $21,000 $21,350 $8,475 $278,687
Total of actual Board Counsel Fee versus fee per County limitation fee $140,350 $81,047

The savings here would have been $59,303 if county policy applied

 

As you will see most of the above County bond issues were for educational, medical and retirement facilities. Only two (Countryside and Eastwood) were similar to what has been financed by bonds from the Memphis HEHFB.

My investigation of these two boards was instigated by the Global Ministry story and the bond downgrade. There is a real question of transparency and adequate ethics rules, conflict of interest rules and rules concerning competition for front end bond expenses. I have not yet, in response to my open records request, received past bond information from the Memphis HEHFB. I have received past bond information from the State of Tennessee (Steve Osborne, Senior Analyst, Comptroller of the Treasury ǀ State and Local Finance). Here is some of the information that he sent showing past bond expenses and who participated.

Here is a list of past bond work done by Charles Carpenter (board counsel for the Memphis board). While Mr. Carpenter is a competent bond counsel lawyer, there needs to be more transparency in the issuance of these bonds, written conflict of interest rules, limitation of front end bond costs and competition for the various issuance costs. There is also a need for a public discussion of the best and most cost efficient method to provide adequate housing for those unable to work and provide needed housing for themselves.

Where Does The Increased Downtown Tax Revenue Come From?

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016

March 22, 2016

Where Does The Increased Downtown Tax Revenue Come From?

I read with interest the March 20th Sunday article in the Commercial Appeal entitled Bass Pro sales near $45M in nine months. This would be from May 2015 thru January 2016. This is indeed good news for cash strapped Memphis but the question still remains in my mind, what downtown sales tax businesses are responsible for an increase of over $7 million in Tourist Development Zone sales taxes returned to Memphis in the fiscal year from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. Read the article at http://www.memphisshelbyinform.com/2016/02/16/tdz-tourist-development-zone-revenue-review/

 

Now the CA article claimed that the Bass Pro Pyramid sales for June 2015 were $7.1 million. So let us assume that May 2015 (the opening month) was $6 million or a total for the first two months of $13 million. This would account for about $1.17 million in additional sales tax returns to the downtown TDZ. But there was over $7 million extra TDZ returns in the year ending June 30, 2015.  This is the question I asked the Downtown Memphis Commission? They said they would investigate and let me know. To date I have heard nothing from them.

In any event, considering that Memphis is in such desperate need of additional income, it is good news to hear that the incremental sales taxes for 2015 over and above 2014 are up over $7 million. Let us hope that this trend continues.

Can any of you readers tell me what downtown businesses in the downtown TDZ zone, other than Bass Pro, could be responsible for the big increase in TDZ incremental sales taxes? Let me know at memphisshelbyinform@gmail.com.

 

The Hidden Cost of Health Education and Housing Board Bonds

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

March 15, 2016

 

The Hidden Cost of Health Education and Housing Board Bonds

The Commercial Appeal recently published a story about a downgrade of a local bond issue as follows. “On Feb. 12, the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, which oversees the$11.8 million bond, sent a notice of default to bondholders notifying them the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had ended its contract with the borrower, Global Ministries Foundation.”

I have been researching the whole issue of City and County boards and commissions and particularly the Memphis Health Education and Housing Facility Board. I asked that board for a list of bonds issued by the Board for the last five years with cost data and information of the parties receiving payment upon the issuance of the bonds. The board has failed to respond to that request for open records. Therefore I went to the State of Tennessee and received five reports on local bond issues from Steve Osborne, Senior Analyst, Comptroller of the Treasury, State and Local Finance. Here are the five issues I received.

Uptown Senior Housing Project ($4,000,000)

Arbors of Hickory Ridge ($11,450,000)

Housing/Social Services ($4,061,000)

John Madison Exum Towers ($19,000,000)

Uptown Manor Senior Project ($2,825,000)

The five reports are very revealing but first I have to tell you about my request to the Shelby County Health, Education and Housing Facility Board (same name as the similar City HEHFB) but a completely different board. I asked for their documents on ethics and conflict of interest policy and I received it as shown. I particularly call your interest to page 6 wherein is shown a maximum fee calculation for the legal fee of Bond Counsel.

I have shown below the fee paid to the bond counsel of the Memphis HEHFB board on the five recent bond issues versus what would be the fee from the Shelby County Board HEHFB.

 

 

 

 

 

Name of Project Bond Amount Actual Bond Counsel Fee City of Memphis HEHFB Maximum Bond Counsel Fee of County HEHFB
Arbors of Hickory Ridge Project $11,450.000 $26,000 $21,450
Housing and Social Services $4,061,000 $25,255.08 $11,122
John Madison Exum Towers and Apartment I and II $19,000.000 $85,000 $29,000
Uptown Housing Senior Project 2006 $4,000,000 $40,000 $11,000
Uptown Manor Senior Project $2,825,000 $21,000 $13,062.50
Total Bond Counsel Fee $197,255.08 $85,634.50

 

On these five bond issues, this is $111,621 more than the County maximum amount in their ordinance. But this is just the beginning of the cost of the bond issuance. The total for these five bond issues just for the Memphis HEHFB is $967,304.03.

Then there is the question of a possible conflict of interest although apparently there is no provision that I have been able to obtain concerning a City of Memphis conflict of interest policy although I have been told that the Strickland Administration is working on such a policy.

I think that it is high time that we get a discussion going on this high cost of bond issuance and is this approach to adequate housing for low income citizens the best and most efficient method. Also there needs to be a clear and open policy on bond issuance fees, conflict of interest and ethics.