12/19/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vk , E PAB allocation but, by tying it to Phase I only, escape safety, health and environmental requirements on Phase 1I. Nearly one year later, on October 27, 2017, the FDFC renewed its agreement to serve as the conduit issuer of the bonds on behalf AAF. In the August 2016 ruling, District Court Judge Cooper found that the $1.75 billion PAB allocation would cost the U.S. Treasury up to $600 million in foregone tax revenue over 10 years. Extrapolating from that conclusion, we can assume that the foregone tax revenue would equal up to approximately one-third of the new $600 million PAB allocation—approximately $200 million over 10 years. Questionable FDFC Practices_ --Then and Now, Public notice of the FDFC's October 27 meeting, during which it approved a bond resolution and related financing documents for the $600 million PAB allocation, was publicly posted 72 hours before the meeting took place. We have now reviewed FDFC's documents and recent exchanges with AAF. These records reveal that AAF officials were in touch with the FDFC staff by email and phone regularly before the public posting. It shows a contempt for opponents to provide so little notice of the proceeding when AAF and FDFC staff were long aware of the hearing. Additionally, we are concerned by the lack of a public hearing required under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) for the $600 million PAB allocation. In 2015, a TEFRA hearing was held for the issuance of the $1.75 billion PAB request. In 2017, the October 27 FDFC meeting packet indicates that TEFRA approval occurred on August 1, 2017, without a hearing. Upon review of the August 1 TEFRA approval letter, an obvious concern is that the 2017 letter - describes the maximum bond amount as $1.75 billion, not the current $600 million. In addition, the current $600 million PAB allocation is specifically for Phase I of the project, yet the TEFRA letter of August 1 lists two Counties located in Phase II—Brevard County and Orange County. The FDFC needs to explain to the public and OPPAGA if this letter was written in error, or if AAF intends to exploit this ambiguity to use some of the new $600 million allocation for Phase II of the project. These questionable practices are nothing new. During the 2014-2015 FDFC approval process, Indian River County, Martin County, CARE FL and other concerned parties repeatedly raised numerous concerns, including, but not limited to: Multiple Communications Between FDFC Board Members and AAF. Previous public records requests revealed that the FDFC Board Members and FDFC staff engaged in extensive communications with AAF and/or its affiliates. In fact, while Indian River County, Martin County, CARE FL and other opposition voices often got no response to formal correspondence to the FDFC, AAF was having a series of private meals and briefings with the Board Members. For instance: 2 /tis��