portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

energy & nuclear | environment

Encumbent Astoria Port Commissioner Breaks Ground On His Own Project On Port Property!

You will See a "Common Sense" overview on the financing of this Project by Rose Priven of "People For Responsible Prosperity" out of Warrenton, Oregon that casts some serious questions as to the integrity of what's going on here.

This was part of an interchange between Taggart and Priven back during the last election run for Port of Astoria Commissioners.

You be the judge
Commercial Development: Will House New Marina Office, Restrooms & Showers
C.A. Taggart Construction recently broke ground on its commercial development near the West Basin. The building will also house new showers and restrooms for boaters, as well as the Port's Harbor Master office. Completion is anticipated by Spring 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st interghange by Taggart:

Last night at a candidate function, Rose Priven (I assume on behalf of my
opponent Tom Brownson) critisized the lease the port will pay for a new
marina office and restrooms.

Her challenge was at best "a reach" and obviously not well prepared. I'll
also mention it was so far out, I hope she doesn't try to bounce this off of
everyone.

Her contention was the Port was getting a bad deal on the lease.
Unfortunately, her financial skills were left behind when she did the math.

She contended over a 50 year period of the lease, the Port would pay $1
million some odd dollars. She also did not explain that I am also paying
lease to the port. When you factor in the difference, at the 50 year period,
the effectively pays $567,600. Good deal or bad deal? Well, as a developer,
that gives me about a 2% return. Rose, go find a developer that will jump at
that deal. I'll give you a hint. They don't exist.

Now lets get into the real world of real estate finance. Rose, as someone
who touts finances as an expertise, I'm surprised you would speak about
something you obviously are not familiar with.

First of all, lets compare apples to apples on something all real estate
finance folks and developers are familiar with - Term of loans. We don't
talk in terms of 50 years. Lenders don't go there. At least I haven't found
any that will.

I like examples. Let's suppose the Port decided to build its own building.
For this type of facility, $125/sqft to build is a fair assumption if not
conservative. They are leasing approx. 1850 sqft. The first math we'll do is
how much it would take to build the building. $125 x 1850 = roughly 230,000
(I like round numbers). Next tack on $25k for architect/engineering. Now,
add $100k for site utilities. Total? About $350k.

Now, the port has to borrow the money because the port doesn't have the
cash. $350k for 20 years at 7% interest. Keep in mind the interest rate is
standard because this project doesn't add jobs to qualify for low interest
loans.
Monthly payment - $2700
Principal - $350,000
Total interest paid for 20 years - $300,000
Total life cost - $650,000

Ok, still with me? Let's compare the other apple.
Port's lease paid to me - $2304/month
My lease paid to port - $1358/month
Difference - $946/month

Since the effective amount of cost to the port is $946/month, we use that
number.
Based on 20 years, the cost to the Port is roughly $226,800

Let's summarize the 20 year cost so you can clearly understand.
Port builds its own building - $650,000
Port leases space - $226,800

Is the Port truly getting a bad deal here or a good deal?

Rose, you might want to consult your finacial handbook before you answer.
Heck, bounce it off a developer. At least do a little bit of research before
you talk about matters such as this. Conscise preparation is the first step
towards credibility.
g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priven's Retort;

Hi Glenn,

I don't often read this forum but I guess it is a good thing I did today. I
must have really touched a sore point last night--your anger is palpable. I
was not representing Tom Brownson as you assumed. As a matter of fact, I was
not attacking you in any way. I tried to make it clear that you acted
absolutely legally and correctly in this matter. I made a point of stating
that you had recused yourself from the proceedings. It is really up to the
other commissioners to defend their actions. Afterall, it was their
responsibility to look after the interests of the port.

I do not claim to be any financial whiz kid, but I don't buy into your
logic.

Since you prefer to talk about a twenty year period as that would be the
life of a loan, then it is clear that anyone leasing that property at $1358.
per month would pay the port approximately $325,920. over twenty years. That
is the value of the use of the property for that period of time.

Under the lease with you, the port has agreed to pay you roughly $552,960.
over a twenty year period for the lease of part of your building.

I am also willing to accept your figures on the 20 year cost of the port
borrowing money and building the stand alone facility which you stated would
be $650,000. The difference between the cost of renting for twenty years and
the cost of buying (according to your figures) is about $400. more that the
port would have to pay. Obviously, at the end of that period of time, the
port's loan payments would drop to $0. and it would own the building. If it
rented the facility from you, payments would continue for up to thirty more
years. If the port rented part of your building for the full fifty years
possible under the lease agreement, the port would pay to you about
$1,382,4000. That is the value of the lease.

If you lease the land for the full fifty years possible at $1358. per month,
you will have paid the port $814,800. That is the value of the use of the
property.

One cannot simply say that one payment offsets the other because there is
the value of the use of the property to consider.

As I said last night, nothing is ever simple and there are nuances to
consider such as property tax, maximizing the value of the property,
available space and its configuration, etc. Nonetheless, to make my point,
let's look at a hypothetical situation.

Suppose a company leased a piece of property for $1358. per month over a 30
year time period with two 10 year extensions. Potentially, they would pay
the port about $814,800 over a fifty year period. If the port built a stand
alone restroom/office facility, it would cost $650,000. for the first 20
years then the payments would drop to $0. If the port wanted to dedicate the
lease income from that first piece of property for the building of a stand
alone facility for the first twenty years, its out of pocket expenses would
be $400. per month as opposed to $944.95 under the existing leases.

Under the current leases, the port will be paying $732,400. more than it
would cost to build their own facility. The only way the current deal can
seem to be advantageous to the port is if you fail to take into account the
value of the use of the land.

The bottom line of this deal, it seems to me, is that the Taggart company
gets to use the property for free and the port gets to rent the
restrooms/office for more than twice the money that it would take to build
its own. I can see that this is a good deal for you and your company but I
just don't see how it is a good deal over the long run for the port.

Rose
a little more info please 26.Sep.2005 13:18

interested

what is the background on this?

Is this "deal" going forward currently as taggart wanted it to back then?

Is Taggart is running for the port commissioner's position AND running a contracting company that does business with the port?

Where does this email interchange come from? When did it happen?

The Minutes...Port is leasing back from its own Commissioner? 26.Sep.2005 15:54

CDG

RESOLUTION 2005-11 APPROVING LEASE TO C.A. TAGGART. RESOLUTION 2005-12 APPROVING LEASE FROM C.A. TAGGART. Commissioner Taggart recused himself in regards to the leases involving C.A. Taggart and departed the meeting during discussion and vote on the topics.

Peter Gearin explained originally the Port budgeted, through moorage rate increase, a stand-alone building for new marina office and restroom facilities at an approximate cost of $160,000.

Since then, Port staff were approached with a proposal to provide these facilities within a larger development plan that would also include commercial space for activities such as a restaurant, shops, charter offices, etc.

The Port would then lease the land to the developer to build the complex and then lease from the developer the space for new marina office and restrooms. This option would free the funds devoted to build a new complex to use to complete the haul-out facility and the use of the land to be developed by a
private industry would contribute to the tax base for the Urban Renewal District.

Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2005-11 Lease of land to C.A. Taggart and Resolution 2005-12 lease of building space from C.A. Taggart. Commissioner McDaniel concurred with staff recommendation, noting it will free up funds for development of other projects and will put the land on the county tax rolls. Chairman Pfund agreed, adding it is an important part of the marina support and a great step forward.

Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve Resolution 2005-11 and Resolution 2005-12. Commissioner Hess seconded the motion. Commissioners Pfund, Hess, McDaniel and Bergeron voted yes.

Commissioner Taggart was not present and did not vote.

The motion carried with majority vote.

Commissioner Taggart re-entered the meeting

I'm also 26.Sep.2005 23:01

wondering

Hey there, compact disc w/graphics, "Where does this email interchange come from? When did it happen?" Furthermore, aren't you beating the horse to death just because he didn't want to stay and play on your little forum? You had plenty of time to cross examine him then and there but chose not to, why? We live in a town of 10, 000 people and a county of 33,000 people. If we had to stop doing business everytime one of us or one of our relatives got elected for something, or appointed to something, we would all have to stopped working years ago or just let the rich people w/o any jobs run the whole county. If a certain house designer's wife had won the election would he have stopped designing houses in case homeowners possibly built on lots in dangerous slide areas, or toxic old mill ponds, and end up suing the city for allowing construction on the house to go through? It could be said the wife influenced the vote to change zoning just so her house designing husband could get more work! Ridiculous? Of course, of course, of course!

Go back after the county District Attorney. Why did he come to Astoria and how long was his sentence to the Siberia of the Pac NW? Is his reward the Oregon Attorney General or did he completely blow it with his little screw up in Lincoln City? Is he treading water with all of his media appearances, trying to make sure he stays in the outskirts of the limelight long enough to still be remembered by his cronies on the otherside of the mountain range, or is he just flat out sinking, getting ready for his inivetable plunge into the murky depths of the Columbian?

More info regarding the port 26.Sep.2005 23:17

thinking it thru

Port of Astoria minutes going back to January 2004
 http://www.portofastoria.com/news/minutes.html

They still have the $160,000 don't they? Why don't they buy more land and lease it out? Buildings take alot of maintenance. Keep to land, little maintenance and if someone builds on it the port can keep the building at the end of the lease, right? What is it, again, that the Port is leasing from Taggart? An office?

Also "Wondering".....You're making a fool of yourself with this nonsense 30.Sep.2005 11:01

CDG cdgoldfinch@usa.com

Your insinuations are way off-base "Wondering".

By the way, there are 9999 others in Astoria that are much smarter than this "Twit" mind you so don't base your opinion of the community on this one person's disillusioned crap.

"Wondering" has got a real problem with this McGee fella.

Why is that?

Does "Wondering" actually believe this guy is me?

Does this "Wondering" post here often?

Has "Wondering" even looked at the overview of the deal and how the numbers are just plain crazy?

Never mind(Paragraph two)

The Prophecy? Taggart's gonna go down in flames on this before it's over and he will be betrayed by his own kind to save their own asses.

Is "Goat" the proper word for this?

When did the emails take place? 02.Oct.2005 13:52

wondering

Rose Priven wasn't even running against Taggart so why did the emails take place, when did the emails take place?

Rose Priven lost handly in the elections. Hess won the race for Position 2 with 4,824 votes, compared to 2,505 votes for Rose Priven, 1,532 votes for Lisa Lamping and 382 votes for John Dunzer.

Attacking "Wondering" didn't answer a single question. Your right, wondering people don't like you or trust you. Your a two faced manipulator. You hate competition and will do ANYTHING to discredit it, rather than take it like a man and RISE to the occassion, making your services better. Your wife LOST, your website's TIRED, your little "give war a chance" friday afternoon rallies are pathetic. And do you do ANYTHING to make these situations BETTER? NO! You attack the competition, you attack your betters.

Why don't you just make what you have to offer better? Why can't you beat people that way? Your such a destructive piece of garbage.

Taggart aint "going down in flames". And your the one with a hard on for the community that didn't want your wife on the council, because of YOU, and because they are much smarter then YOU give them credit for, which is why THEY voted for the people they wanted representing them on the port. YOUR the one that keeps refering to THEM as apathetic idiots, sheep who haven't brians. THIS port was re-elected AFTER your did everything in your power to discredit every single one of them.

So answer the questions or shut the hell up. "Where does this email interchange come from? When did it happen?" And one more "Was Rose Priven satisfied with the answers?"

Taggart and his Port of Astoria Commission sold out the Lower Columbia to LNG 08.Oct.2005 09:03

FireKing

Taggart ain't no saint.
Wasn't he one of those that signed that lease with Calpine?
He's a contractor too, right?
How big a construction contract you think he's gonna get from Calpine?
There's a whole bunched lined up, you wanta bet, to get a piece of that construction party?
This whole thing totally stinks of "Conflict of Interest" and somebody could be going down, down, down.