Future of Heartland Park (and KS Nationals) in jeopardy (3 Viewers)

[Chevy Nick]

Judge in Heartland Park case anticipates issuing a decision Wednesday

Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks acknowledged Thursday that a 2011 Kansas Court of Appeals ruling says judges should try to validate citizen petitions seeking ballot question elections if they can.

But judges facing such decisions also must take into account statutes approved by Kansas lawmakers and direction received from the Kansas Supreme Court, Hendricks said.

The judge responded after Topeka attorney R.E. “Tuck” Duncan said the 2011 ruling in the case of City of Prairie Village v. Morrison directs judges to “bend over backwards to try to find that what the public did was compliant.”

The petition drive organizer in that particular case lost it because he failed to attach copies of the ordinance he was seeking to overturn to his protest petition, Duncan said during a nearly four-hour hearing Thursday.

Hendricks presided over the proceedings in the Topeka city government’s lawsuit challenging the validity of an initiative petition seeking to force a public vote on the city’s proposed purchase of the Heartland Park Topeka racing facility.

Hendricks said he planned to issue a memorandum decision order in the case next Wednesday. District Court Judge Evelyn Wilson said last month that Kansas statute required the case to be decided by Tuesday, which Hendricks said will be a federal holiday.

About 25 people, which Duncan said included petition carriers, were present for most of Thursday’s proceedings, which lasted nearly four hours.

Hendricks heard oral arguments from Duncan, representing petition drive organizer Chris Imming; Catherine Logan and Ken Weltz of Lathrop & Gage, representing the city; and Kevin Fowler of Topeka-based Frieden Unrein Forbes & Biggs LLP, representing Jayhawk Racing LLC, Heartland Park’s owner.

Hendricks heard arguments first on Imming’s motion to dismiss the case, then on separate motions by the city, Jayhawk Racing and Imming each asking that Hendricks issue a summary judgment deciding the case in their favor.

The city and Jayhawk Racing are asking Hendricks to declare the petition invalid. Imming is asking Hendricks to order the city to overturn the ordinance in question or put it up for a citywide vote.

Imming initiated the petition drive after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to approve the ordinance authorizing the purchase of the financially troubled Heartland Park racing facility and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond debt.

The petition drive gained more than the number of signatures required to get the matter on the ballot. Meanwhile, the city sought advice from the Overland Park-based law firm of Lathrop & Gage, which said the petition was legally invalid for multiple reasons.

Questions of law dominated Thursday’s discussion. It included debate over the city’s argument that the petition is invalid because an initiative petition can’t legally overturn an administrative ordinance, and the ordinance authorizing the racetrack purchase was administrative.

Logan said the administrative nature of the ordinance was illustrated by the fact that it executes and implements a state law, the STAR Bond Financing Act.

She said the steps required to implement the ordinance, including holding public hearings and preparing a feasibility study, could be carried out by city administrators but not by an ordinary citizen.

Duncan replied that any decision by a city to purchase a racetrack isn’t merely an administrative move but a “huge public policy decision.”

 

[Chevy Nick]

Path is clear for City of Topeka to purchase Heartland Park

Shawnee County judge rules Heartland Park petition invalid

The petition to force the city’s plan to purchase Heartland Park Topeka won’t go to a public vote.

Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks at 3:52 p.m. Wednesday issued a judgement in favor of Topeka and Jayhawk Racing, ruling invalid a petition submitted by Topekan Chris Imming.

“The effect of this finding is that the Imming Petition is invalid as a matter of law,” Hendricks wrote in his conclusion.

Hendricks presided over the proceedings in the Topeka city government’s lawsuit challenging the validity of an initiative petition seeking to force a public vote on the city’s proposed purchase of the Heartland Park Topeka racing facility.

“The city of Topeka respects the judicial process, and the decision of Judge Hendricks,” city manager Jim Colson said in a news release. “We plan to take this issue back to the Governing Body for further discussion at the next scheduled meeting.”

The council next is scheduled to meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday in its chambers in City Hall, 214 S.E. 8th.

Hendricks during the Nov. 6 oral arguments stated that a 2011 Kansas Court of Appeals ruling says judges should try to validate citizen petitions seeking ballot question elections if they can.

But, he added, judges facing such decisions also must take into account statutes approved by Kansas lawmakers and direction received from the Kansas Supreme Court.

Over the course of nearly two months, Imming collected 3,587 signatures on the petition. He was required to get 2,132.

Imming initiated the petition drive after the city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to approve the ordinance authorizing the purchase of the financially troubled Heartland Park racing facility and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond debt.

The plan includes issuing another $5 million in STAR bonds to purchase Heartland Park free and clear of debt. The extra debt is necessary to expand the current STAR bond district — an effort to capture enough state sales tax revenue to pay off $17 million in debt toward the facility. Sales tax projections are based on what facilities in the expanded district currently report.

Hendricks offered his comments on Nov. 6 in response to Topeka attorney R.E. “Tuck” Duncan, who said the 2011 ruling in the case of City of Prairie Village v. Morrison directs judges to “bend over backwards to try to find that what the public did was compliant.”

The petition drive organizer in that particular case lost it because he failed to attach copies of the ordinance he was seeking to overturn to his protest petition, Duncan said during a nearly four-hour hearing Thursday.

About 25 people, which Duncan said included petition carriers, were present for most the proceedings Nov. 6, which lasted nearly four hours.

Hendricks heard oral arguments from Duncan, representing petition drive organizer Chris Imming; Catherine Logan and Ken Weltz of Lathrop & Gage, representing the city; and Kevin Fowler of Topeka-based Frieden Unrein Forbes & Biggs LLP, representing Jayhawk Racing LLC, Heartland Park’s owner.

Hendricks heard arguments first on Imming’s motion to dismiss the case, then on separate motions by the city, Jayhawk Racing and Imming each asking that Hendricks issue a summary judgment deciding the case in their favor.

Imming asked Hendricks to order the city to overturn the ordinance in question or put it up for a citywide vote, and the city and Jayhawk Racing asked Hendricks to declare the petition invalid.

Attorneys for the city and Jayhawk Racing argued the petition is invalid because an initiative petition can’t legally overturn an administrative ordinance, and the ordinance authorizing the racetrack purchase was administrative.

Logan said the administrative nature of the ordinance was illustrated by the fact that it executes and implements a state law, the STAR Bond Financing Act.

She said the steps required to implement the ordinance, including holding public hearings and preparing a feasibility study, could be carried out by city administrators but not by an ordinary citizen.

Duncan replied that any decision by a city to purchase a racetrack isn’t merely an administrative move but a “huge public policy decision.”

 

[Terry]

So can we breathe a little easier on this issue now, Nick? Or is it still in a state of turmoil? And as always, thanks for taking time to update us on the HPT situation.

 

[Chevy Nick]

I think we breathe easier, there will be a city council meeting on Tuesday, things should be finalized there.

 

[Chevy Nick]

Topeka to proceed with Heartland Park deal as planned

Topeka's plan to expand the state sales tax revenue district around Heartland Park will go forward as previously planned — the only remaining thing standing in its way being the potential appeal from the petition effort.

“I think it's important to hold the course,” city manager Jim Colson said during Tuesday's council meeting.

While some have called upon the city to hold an election to respect the wishes of the roughly 4,000 people who signed the petition that would force the plan to a public vote, Colson said any vote scheduled on the city council's authority alone wouldn't be legally binding and could put the city at risk for litigation.

In recommending the council proceed as planned, he referenced the memorandum of understanding the council agreed to in June, which obligates the city to go through the Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond process by the end of February or Heartland Park faces foreclosure, and the upcoming racing season, which depends on a stable future for the track.

Proceeding as planned, Colson repeatedly said, is what is in the city’s long-term best interest.

Petition drive organizer Chris Imming and his attorney, R.E. “Tuck” Duncan, announced Monday they would wait a few more days to decide whether to appeal a judge’s ruling that invalidated the petition. Duncan said he and Imming also would monitor Tuesday's council meeting.

The Topeka City Council discussed Heartland Park for nearly 40 minutes at the end of its meeting Tuesday as a non-action item. While no votes were cast, several members of the council voiced support for going forward with the city's plan to acquire Heartland Park and expand the STAR bond district.

“We've asked the city manager to come forth with what he believes to be the best option,” said Councilman Richard Harmon. “It's not a perfect option. Nobody wanted to be in this position. But place the blame where the blame lies.”

That blame, Harmon said, should rest on his shoulders and on the rest of the council members who passed the original STAR bonds for Heartland Park in 2006, which relied on too small a revenue district. Councilwoman Sylvia Ortiz also acknowledged being on the council at that time.

Back then, Harmon said, the STAR bond wasn't considered a “high-risk venture,” and no one could have predicted the 2008 recession.

“There wasn’t a hint of opposition to the STAR bond project,” Harmon said. “There wasn’t anybody who didn’t think this wasn’t in the best interest of the city.”

The petition effort this fall submitted more than 4,000 signatures — 3,587 were determined valid — before the city filed a lawsuit challenging the petition’s validity, a suit the city ultimately won after Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks on Wednesday ruled the petition invalid.

The city council on Tuesday heard from only one member of the public: Teresa Miller, with the North Topeka West Neighborhood Improvement Association.

“To the 4,000 people that trusted the city and the county, basically it’s a slap in the face,” she said. “I don’t know how else to say it.”

Council members Tuesday expressed frustration with not being able to disclose information to the public earlier in the process because of the potential for litigation. The council had been discussing Heartland Park for about one year before anything was released.

“When you are at risk of litigation, it becomes very difficult to be able to express to the public things you aren't able to disclose,” said Councilwoman Michelle De La Isla. “While all of these conversations were being had, the No. 1 concern was how will we save the citizens of Topeka funds?”

Even with those limitations, Colson acknowledged he and the city could have done a better job engaging the public on the issue. The first vote by the council, which locked the city into the MOU and workout agreement with Jayhawk Racing and CoreFirst, was taken five days after releasing information to the public.

“We should have done more to help people understand this issue,” Colson said. “We could have done a better job. Let me be very clear, I could have done a better job.”

Colson and the council members used Tuesday as an opportunity to reiterate the importance of the city's proposal. By doing nothing, Topeka taxpayers would be on the hook for a nearly $10 million in outstanding STAR bond debt, Colson said.

The city's plan increases that debt to $17 million, but it relies on existing states sales tax revenues of an expanded district — as opposed to the lofty projections used in the previous STAR bond issuance — that show the city will break even by the time the debt comes due.

The city's plan, as opposed to doing nothing, also won't mean new taxes. The revenue for the additional debt already is being collected by the state, which would be redirected to pay off the Heartland Park debt. One of the main questions remaining for people concerns the consequences of the $17 million bonds if the racetrack doesn’t perform, said Councilwoman Karen Hiller.

“The economic viability of this plan is not based on the success of the track” because it relies on taxes generated outside the racetrack, Colson answered. One of the contractual obligations with the new owner, he said, would be to continue to operate the track so it remains as “a qualified investment under the STAR bond.”

Colson reiterated the city's plan to find a new owner or manager for the park, noting the city “has no plans to run a racetrack.”

Another concern, Hiller said, was if the city could find a new owner or manager before issuing the new bonds. City attorney Chad Sublet said the timeline required in the MOU necessitates the request for proposal and bond issuance proceed at the same time.

 

[Chevy Nick]

I sat in the Topeka City Council meeting tonight. It's free entertainment. I knew something was up when I had a hard time finding a parking spot. When I got there, most seats were full, about 65 people in attendance. Some people were there for the vote on increasing water rates. Apparently you have to get on a list earlier in the week to speak at these. People that had signed up to talk about the water rate increase also felt it necessary to comment on Heartland Park. All the local TV stations were there. Lots of negative opinions voiced about the city council and Heartland Park. Not sure if that will impact the next city council election.

Bottom Line; people in the city are pissed off at the city council. Nothing was voted on regarding HPT, but a lot of discussion. Jim Colson really really wants to move forward, I think he's going to start the RFP process. Colson implied there would be some level of council discussion regarding the bids they will receive. That will be another opportunity for public comment.

Water rates are going up 5% for residents, 6% for industrial/commercial use in Topeka.

 

[Cletus]

I hope everything turns out ok for HPT. I always enjoyed going there each year.

 

[turbo ken]

I also hope everything works out good for HPT instead of how it worked out for KCIR. Loosing any track should concern everyone who races, or go to watch races, even if they don't get the chance to race, or watch a race there.

 

[Chevy Nick]

City puts out request for proposals to purchase or manage Heartland Park

Topeka’s city government has put out a request for proposals from anyone interested in buying the financially troubled Heartland Park Topeka racing facility or leasing it and managing it for the city.

The city will start accepting proposals Monday, according to the RFP, which contracts and procurement director Jay Oyler posted Thursday on the city’s website at http://bit.ly/1Hrqf8j.

“The City of Topeka is seeking proposals from qualified organizations or individual(s) for the Purchase Or Lease for the Management and Operations of Heartland Park Motorsports Racing Facility,” the RFP said.

It gave directions on how to submit proposals online using the city’s website at www.topeka.org.

Oyler indicated in the RFP that the city won’t accept any proposals received after the deadline of 2 p.m. Dec. 12.

He added, “The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals, waive any technicalities or informalities, and to determine which is the best proposal.”

The RFP doesn’t go into detail about what the city will expect from whomever it chooses to purchase or management Heartland Park.

The city’s governing body voted Aug. 12 to approve an ordinance authorizing the purchase of the financially troubled racing facility and the expansion of its redevelopment district. The purchase was among steps required to carry out the city’s plan to buy Heartland Park and solve a problem regarding Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) bond debt. City manager Jim Colson said the city had no plans to run the racetrack, and only wanted to find a new owner or manager for it.

Topeka Chris Imming subsequently initiated a petition drive that gained more than the required number of signatures to get the matter on the ballot, but the city filed suit challenging the petition’s validity and Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks ruled last week that it was invalid.

Imming’s attorney, R.E. “Tuck” Duncan, said Monday they would wait a few more days to decide whether to appeal Hendricks’ ruling. They had made no decision as of Thursday.

Meanwhile, city manager Jim Colson encountered no opposition from governing body members when he announced his intention at Tuesday’s city council meeting to proceed with the purchase.

Click here to see the actual RFP for Heartland Park

 

[FABMAN]

Wow, whats with that, 20 days must be procedural plan no way anyone could put together a qualified business plan in that period of time.

 

[Chevy Nick]

Here's some of the RFP:

CITY OF TOPEKA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HEARTLAND PARK MULTI-USE MOTORSPORTS RACING FACILITY
OWNER/OPERATOR OR LONG TERM LEASE FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

The City of Topeka, Kansas is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations or individual(s) to purchase or lease the entire facility. Proposals should include management plans for the Drag Strip, Road Course, Oval Dirt Track and Developable Property. Interested parties are encouraged to include concepts for use that enhance and grow existing motorsports at the three separate and distinct tracks, include new concepts for use that may or may not be motorsports related but increase the total number of events and spectator attendance that will maximize the use and revenue potential from the entire facility.

1. Existing Facilities at Heartland Park

Drag Strip. Includes access roads, vehicle parking, spectator viewing, suites and NHRA world class drag strip. The following improvements are part of the Drag Strip area:
• Quarter mile asphalt track
• Control Tower
• Spectator Seating
• Ticket Booth
• Concessions
• Permanent electrical installations
• Camping facilities
• Two paddocks to accommodate participants
• Restroom and shower facilities
• Garages

Dirt Track. 3/8 mile dirt track including access roads, vehicle parking area and spectator viewing area. Currently hosts (in season) Super 8 dirt track races, pure stock, stock car, B-Modified and Modified. The following improvements are part of the dirt track facility:
• Spectator seating
• Ticket Booth
• Concessions
• Permanent electrical installations
• Camping facilities
• Two paddocks to accommodate participants
• Restroom and shower facilities
• Garages

Road Course. 2.5 mile asphalt road course including access roads, vehicle parking area and spectator viewing area that can be configured in a number of ways. Course can host events ranging from kart races to SCCA races.

Developable Property. There are 122.16 acres M/L contingent to and located north and northwest of the existing racing facilities that may be developed. There are 155.25 acres M/L contingent to and located east of the existing racing facilities that may be developed. The City is desirous of seeing the entire facility developed with entertainment and other activities.

2. Scope of Services
Operation of Motorsports Facilities. Proposer shall provide a written plan for the operation of Heartland Park Multi-Use Motorsports Racing Facility. Proposers must clearly demonstrate that they have the ability to operate and maintain the entire facility.
Plan for Developable Property. Proposers should provide preliminary concepts and ideas for development and use of property that is currently not developed. The City is desirous of seeing the entire 700 acre property developed with entertainment and other activities. Proposers shall provide concepts for development and growth of the entire facility.
Qualifications and Experience. Proposers shall clearly demonstrate that they have the qualifications and experience to operate and maintain all aspects of the entire facility. It is desired that the proposers demonstrate that they have a proven track record of growing existing operations and future alternative uses for the entire facility including developable property.
Financial Plan. Proposers shall provide a 10 year financial plan for the operation of the entire facility. Proposers shall demonstrate that they fully understand the economic assets and liabilities related to operating and maintaining all aspects of Heartland Park including operations, maintenance, repair, marketing and promotions, including a plan for a revenue sharing agreement with the City.
Insurance. A letter from proposer’s insurance broker stating that insurance will be provided in the manner and at the limits required by the City.
References. Three (3) references, including name, title, address, phone number and e-mail address of reference. The references should include one that can confirm the financial ability (bank, credit union, accountant) to carry out the operation and two that can confirm the technical ability to carry out all of proposers proposed activities.
Compliance with City’s existing Agreement with the NHRA. The City has an existing Agreement with the NHRA contingent on execution of the STAR Bond plan as defined in City of Topeka Ordinance 19915. The proposer must provide written confirmation that they will strictly adhere with all aspects of the current NHRA Agreement.

3 Insurance. In addition to the other requirements, the operator will be required to carry insurance policies that meet the City’s requirement and name the City as an additional insured on applicable policies. Additionally, the operator must agree to Indemnify and Hold the City Harmless
A. Must adhere to National Hot Rod Association Standards.
a. Waiver and Release from Liability
With respect to racing events at NHRA Member Tracks, the tracks must maintain a system of regularly secure signed Waiver and Release forms from participants allowed to enter restricted areas and to prevent restricted area credentials from being issued before participants have properly signed and executed the Waiver and Release form. For minor participants, drivers (under eighteen (18) years of age), the Member Track must have a system to secure Minor Waiver and Release forms signed by the parent(s) or legal guardian(s).
b. Where used, the policy must include the following definitions:
Restricted area may not be more inclusive than the advance staging area, burn out area, competition area, shut down area, staging lanes, return road area, and any other area with barriers, fences, and/or structures separating the general public from racing activities, and which requires special authorizations, credentials, or permission to enter, or any area where the general public is restricted or prohibited. The definitions of the above terms are as follows:
1. Advanced Staging Area – means the area between the staging lanes and the burnout area;
2. Burnout Area – means the area between the advanced staging area and the competition area where participants conduct he usual preparation and testing of racing vehicles immediately preceding a racing event;
3. Competition Area – means the racing surface beginning at the starting line and ending line at the finish line;
4. Shut Down Area – means the area located from the finish line and beyond where the racing vehicles enter the return road area;
5. Return Road Area – means the area where the racing vehicles exit the shut down area and proceed to the pit area;
6. Pit Area – means the area used to register the participants and prepare racing vehicles for competition.
The participants definition should be defined to include racing vehicle drivers, mechanics, crew members, pit persons, officials of the race event, announcers, ambulance, fire and wrecker truck crews, new persons, photographers, pit gate workers, motor sports event promoters and all other person involved in the actual event, other than members of the general public.
B. Participant Accident Insurance – This coverage is for participants in drag racing events and includes excess Accident Medical Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance and Weekly Disability Benefits.
a. Participant Accident Insurance or approved Self-Insurance must contain the following minimum coverage, conditions and terms:
1. $10,000 Accidental Death and Dismemberment Benefit to participants injured at NHRA Member Tracks (no deductible paid by the participant);
2. $15,000 Blanket Accident Medical Expense benefit on an Excess or Primary basis to participants injured at NHRA Member Tracks (no deductible paid by the participant);
3. $100 Weekly Disability benefit payable up to 52 weeks.
b. The policy must feature at least the coverages and benefits outlined below, and must, at a minimum, include all coverages provided by the NHRA’s Catastrophic Accident Policy, a copy of which is available from the NHRA:
1. Coverage for all participants with no licensing or age restrictions;
2. No jet truck exclusion;
3. No suspension of insurance clause;
4. $5,000 benefit for lost of sight in one eye, loss of one limb, or loss of use of one limb.
5. Tuning and Testing benefits at the same minimum NHRA Member Track Medial and AD&D limits.
C. Other Insurances.
a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Aggregate and Per Occurrence minimum amounts to be negotiated. City must be named as an additional insured.
b. Automobile Insurance. Aggregate and Per Occurrence minimum amounts to be negotiated.
c. Workers Compensation Insurance. Minimum amount as set by Statute.

 

[Chevy Nick]

RFP continued

4. Evaluation Methodology.
Proposers must present evidence that they are fully competent, have the necessary experience, organization and financial capacity to operate, manage, maintain, repair and grow Heartland Park. Proposals will be reviewed, evaluated and ranked using the following selection criteria:
A. Proposer’s plan for operation and maintenance of the facility. 20 points maximum
B. Proposer’s qualifications and experience with racing operations. 20 points maximum
C. The guaranteed compliance to maintain Heartland Park as a racing facility and meet all of the elements of City of Topeka Ordinance 19915. 20 points maximum
D. Financial ability of the proposer to operate, maintain and grow Heartland Park. 20 points maximum
E. Development of the entire 700 acre facility. 10 points maximum
F. Ability to procure insurance that meets the City’s requirements. 5 points maximum
G. Conforming to the RFP terms, conditions and prerequisites set forth in the RFP documents. 5 points maximum.
City of Topeka contractual documents related to Heartland Park from its inception to current, may be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office located in Room 166 in City Hall during normal business hours.

 

[rckymtn3]

Bottom Line; people in the city are pissed off at the city council.

My personal experiences with city councils is that they are the first taste of political corruption a citizen can witness. If a local newspaper investigative reporting (a dying breed) is not on top of things, council members are amazingly able to push their own agendas that benefit themselves rather than the community. I hope for the best here. The best thing is to ask questions as to who will benefit from certain decisions.

 

[Chevy Nick]

As part of the RFP process, The City of Topeka has made the contract with the NHRA public.

Click here to download the NHRA Agreement with Heartland Park

The contract seems a bit one-sided from what I read.

If you look at page 10 of the contract, it says that the City of Topeka guarantees $1.8 Million in revenue from ticket sales, parking, and sponsorship. From what I can tell, this amount excludes any TV money. If revenue is less, the city has to make up the difference.

 

[FABMAN]

Nick great job keeping us informed.

Now, just curious if anyone on Mater might know what revenue a track makes on National event weekend ?

That's a lot of money If it's a successful race they could make even more than that.

 

[Jeff]

$1.8 seems like a pretty reasonable guarantee --- decent promotion and weather should gross you at least a million more than that through the front gate. I assume the NHRA gets 100% of the back gate, but I'm pretty sure the track has to write the checks (at least for all the sportsman categories).

Nick, you've got to remember that "TV money" sorta goes the wrong way for the NHRA. They pay ESPN roughly $10 mil annually (my memory may be bad) to produce and air their shows. I'm sure that the limited advertising they are able to sell doesn't cover too much of that.

Side note -- bummer to see their two divisionals on 4 consecutive days in mid August -- it was like a blast furnace there this August (and this is a guy from Houston talking!)

 

[Chevy Nick]

Heartland Park petition decision to be appealed

A judge’s decision invalidating a petition seeking a citywide vote on the Heartland Park issue will be appealed.

Topekan Chris Imming, who led the petition effort, announced his intent to appeal Wednesday afternoon through his attorney, R.E. “Tuck” Duncan. Duncan said simply in a statement: “Democracy lost. We will appeal.”

Imming initiated a petition drive that gained more than the required number of signatures to force the matter onto the ballot in a citywide election, but the city sued, contesting the petition’s validity. Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks ruled the petition was invalid.

“The Judge agreed the petition was in a proper format, as approved by the county counselor, and substantially conformed with the law. As an initiative petition it meets the requirements of law,” Duncan said. “We will appeal on behalf of the 3,587 persons who put their trust in democracy.”

“The court found that the major policy of the ordinance, buying Heartland Park, was a ‘legislative’ act but then found the whole ordinance administrative, therefore ruling the petition invalid. We believe this is contradictory, and that the entire action was legislative.”

City spokeswoman Suzie Gilbert didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

 

[FABMAN]

What a damm mess, before these so-called politicians get done with this no potential buyer will be interested in crawling into a mess like this. Very Sad

 

[Chevy Nick]

Topeka council members schedule public meeting on Heartland Park

Three Topeka council members have scheduled a public meeting on Monday evening to discuss solutions for Heartland Park Topeka.

Council members Karen Hiller, Elaine Schwartz and T.J. Brown have invited the public to come out at 6 p.m. Monday to Terry’s Bar and Grill, 522 S.W. 6th, to ask questions and discuss the future of the racetrack.

Monday’s meeting comes one day before the Topeka City Council on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on issuing new Sales Tax Revenue bonds to expand the district. That vote could be delayed after petition organizers file an appeal to a Shawnee County District Court ruling invalidating the petition to put the Heartland Park plan to a public vote.

“Time is of the essence in this situation,” Hiller said in a news release. “We hope that those who still have ideas or concerns will come and share them.”

The meeting, according to the release from Hiller, is “in response to steady constituent expressions of confusion about facts of the issue and concern as to whether the best solution is the one proposed by the city manager in June of 2014 and subsequently endorsed by the council.”

That plan involves issuing another $5 million in Sales Tax Revenue bonds to purchase Heartland Park free of debt. The city intends to find an owner or management firm to operate the track. The city recently sent out a request for proposals for such a partner with a deadline of Dec. 12.

Taking on more debt is required to expand the STAR bond district around the racetrack.

A larger district is necessary to pay off the STAR bond debt after the current district, which primarily surrounds the racetrack, routinely has fallen short of revenue projections. By contrast, revenue projections for the expanded STAR bond district are based on existing state sales tax revenues for businesses already operating inside the new district.

City leaders have advocated for the plan because it puts the debt burden on existing state sales tax revenue, which would be diverted to cover the STAR bond debt, rather than Topeka property taxes. The additional bonds would bring the project’s STAR bond debt to $17 million, the full amount of which the expanded district is expected to cover.

In absence of a plan to save Heartland Park, Hiller’s release states, the racing complex is on the track toward foreclosure, and the city would lose $200,000 in annual sales tax revenue.

Monday’s meeting, Hiller’s release states, “will offer all in attendance the opportunity to ask questions to clarify facts about the Heartland Park situation, explore the viability of both the city and the petition proposals, make sure ideas for future uses have been heard and share any proposals for better solutions than the city plan.”

 

[Jeff]

City council meeting at a bar. Got to like that approach.