Shelbyville's Intelliplex Park has entered the final two weeks of its designation as a state-certified technology park. The two-year recertification that the city received for the park in 2007 is due to expire October 5, 2009. Has the City of Shelbyville complied with the terms of the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding? Will Intelliplex Park receive another recertification from the Indiana Economic development Corporation? These and other questions have been on the mind of local citizen activist, Mike Carpenter. Carpenter discusses some of his questions in the following letter.
No Land Sales at Intelliplex Equals No Jobs
by Mike Carpenter
Intelliplex Park was supposed to be a public-private partnership, one goal of which was to bring out-of-state jobs to our community.
The questions that I intended to ask the hospital board of directors, if they had held a public meeting as requested, would have explored one of the reasons why the hospital has failed to sell so much as a dirt clod at Intelliplex in more than two years. You may view all of the questions to Mayor Scott Furgeson and Major Hospital CEO Jack Horner along with Mr. Horner's responses at HYPERLINK "http://www.deebonner.com" www.deebonner.com (see Can O' Worms #13 and #15).
Here are some facts about the public-private partnership. It has been mentioned in the newspaper that the hospital paid $26,000 per acre for the corn field which is now Intelliplex Park. The Shelbyville Redevelopment Commission determines where the recaptured sales and income taxes will be spent. What the general public may not know (and what the IEDC may not know) is that the Redevelopment Commission passed a resolution in December 2005 which outlined where the recaptured sales and income taxes were going to be allocated once the funds were received from the state.
Page three of the Redevelopment Commission resolution #2005-50 (item 2Aii) states for the first $888,888.89 that is deposited into the fund (the state requires that a separate fund be used by the Redevelopment Commission to receive recaptured sales and income taxes), 45% shall be given to the hospital. The reason given is for "land sale repayment." BIG NOTE HERE - the term "land sale repayment" neither appears in the list of reasons for which the funds may be used in the state statute, nor does it appear in any listing within the resolution itself. Forty-five percent of $888,888.89 is $399,960. According to the Shelbyville Redevelopment Commission, that amount is supposed to go to the hospital with no restrictions, no guidelines and no conditions at all.
After the Redevelopment Commission has received $888,888.89 in funds from the state, item B indicates that 90% of the next $3,960,000 (which equals $3,564,000) shall be given to the hospital for the purpose of "land sale repayment." In total, of the possible $5 million coming back from the state, the Shelbyville redevelopment Commission will give the hospital $3,964,000.
If the hospital has $2,340,000 invested in the purchase of the property (ninety acres available at Intelliplex times $26,000 per acre), why is the Redevelopment Commission going to give the hospital $3,964,000 for land sale repayment when that amount is $1,624,000 more than what the hospital actually paid out? How can this much overpayment be considered anything other than profit? If not for greed, the hospital could settle for the funds coming from the the Redevelopment Commission and simply give the land away to out-of-state employers.
Now the real rub. I can find no language which restricts or prevents the hospital from both taking these funds and still selling the Intelliplex property for an additional profit.
I have asked for documentation concerning marketing and promotional materials and land sale agreements. Citing confidentiality, I have been denied. What I can tell you is that the C.B. Richard Ellis website has marketed 90 acres in Shelby County for $9 million. That amounts to $100,000 per acre, and they make no mention of any deals concerning Certified Tech Park funds.
More questions. If Intelliplex is a public-private partnership in which the public, that is you and me, get to pay two-thirds of the infrastructure cost with Economic Development Income Tax dollars, why isn't the hospital sharing two-thirds of the $9 million profits with the public sector partners? Does the IEDC consider it legal or proper for the Redevelopment Commission to allocate tech park funds to developers for land sale repayment and still allow the developer to sell the same property at $100,000 per acre profit?
Is there any wonder why the hospital has not sold so much as a dirt clod? And did I mention, NO JOBS?
I have suggested for months that the other tech parks in the state should be looked at so that we may copy the practices of the successful ones, That would have required some effort. sadly, it was easier to cite the unsuccessful parks as a poor excuse for our own failure. Case in point, the mayor's comment in a May 11 newspaper article, "there is nothing going on in Columbus either." Ironically, the other tech parks in the state are going to point to Intelliplex and use us as the reason to justify the need for further legislative restrictions. Who can blame them? If the IEDC failed to get us to clean up our act when the mayor signed the Two-Year Recertification Memorandum of Understanding, how are they going to give us another recertification?
Posted: Monday, September 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Mike and Dee,
Great work as usual.
I have a question: Is the hospital considered a PRIVATE corporation or a private/public corporation? Doesn't it receive public funds from a foundation?
I am just wondering how the hospital can keep so many things private and "on the QT" if it has any public funding? An example: I have never seen the new hospital CEO's salary reported. We knew that the outgoing CEO was making close to half a million a year for running a tiny rural hospital, but what is the new hospital CEO making?
How can a local community hospital keep so many things secret?